Judgment:
K.K. Srivastava, President:
1. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) praying for the grant of compensation of a sum of Rs. 6,75,796/-, the breakup of which is as under :
| (i) | Value of the damaged vehicle as insured for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- | Rs. 3,00,000/- |
| (ii) | Interest on the amount payable to Delhi Financial Corporation, Chandigarh. | Rs. 41,296/- |
| (iii) | Salary to the driver and cleaner Rs. 2,500 and Rs.1,500/ Rs. 4,000/-per month from the date of accident i.e. 18.7.1998 upto 18.11.1999 | Rs. 64,000/- |
| (iv) | Loss of income from vehicle @ Rs. 10,000 per month from the date of accident upto 18.11.1999. | Rs. 1,60,000/- |
| (v) | Costs of the amount paid for transportation of the said damaged vehicle from Jaipur to Chandigarh. | Rs. 5,000/- |
| (vi) | Mental agony, harassment due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party | Rs. 1,00,000/- |
| (vii) | Costs of the present proceedings, Counsel fee, typing charges, photocopies, misc. expenses. | Rs. 5,500/- |
| Total | Rs. 6,75,796/- |
The complainant purchased Swaraj Mazda Truck bearing Registration No. CH-01-E-3706. The said truck is of 1991 Model. It was insured on 3.11.1997. The insurance was comprehensive in nature and the sum insured is Rs. 3,00,000/-. Annexure C-5 is the copy of the insurance policy relating to the aforesaid Swaraj Mazda Truck. The aforesaid Swaraj Mazda Truck was driven by Shri Kuldeep Singh s/o Shri Surjan Singh, the driver on 16.7.1998 and met with an accident within the limits of Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan on 18.7.1998. An F.I.R. regarding the accident was lodged by one Shri Rattan Lal s/o Shri Shobha Ram and copy thereof is Exhibit C-2 on record. The complainant laid a claim with the Insurance Company/opposite party-Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the same was considered by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the opposite party which repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 27.8.1999 (copy Annexure C-10). The sole ground on which the claim of the complainant was rejected was that the driver of the said vehicle had no valid driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 18.7.1998 as the driving licence had expired on 4.5.1998. Being dissatisfied with the repudiation of the claim, the complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission and prayed a sum of Rs. 6,75,796/-, the details of which we have already given above.
3. Notice of the complaint case was issued to the opposite party-Oriental Insurance Company Limited. A written reply was filed by the opposite party contending inter alia, that the compensation claimed by the complainant is highly excessive and the amount has been deliberately exaggerated so as to bring the complaint within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Honble Commission. Apart from it, the action of the opposite party in repudiating the claim was defended and it was averred that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effecting driving licence at the time of accident. The said licence was renewed subsequently w.e.f. 18.12.1998 and was valid up to 17.12.2001.
4. The complainant filed evidence by way of her affidavit. The opposite party filed affidavit of Dr. R.K. Behl, Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned Counsel for the opposite party. We have gone through the complaint, its reply and evidence on record carefully.
6. The facts involved in this case are not much in dispute. It is the admitted case of the parties before us that Sh. Kuldeep Singh, the driver of the Swaraj Mazda Truck, the insured vehicle, was not possessing the driving licence on the date of the accident as the driving licence had expired on 4.5.1998 (vide Annexure C-3), the photocopy of the driving licence. It is also not disputed the aforesaid driver got his driving licence renewed by the Competent Authority on 18.12.1998, a photocopy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit C-11. This fact has been admitted in the written reply as well as in the affidavit of Shri R.K. Behl, Senior Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Limited. It will be evident from the aforesaid facts that the earlier driving licence issued to the driver Kuldeep Singh had expired on 4.5.1998 and its renewal was done on 18.12.1998 i.e. after the lapse of more than seven months. Section 15 Sub-section (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides as under :
â15(1). Any Licensing Authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.â
7. In the instant case, the renewal of the licence of the driver Shri Kuldeep Singh was got done beyond the expiry of 30 days as a matter of fact it was got done after more than seven months. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the renewed licence (Annexure C-11) shall be treated to have been renewed w.e.f. the date of its renewal i.e. 18.12.1998 and not retrospectively. Apart from it, Section 3 Sub-section (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for necessity for driving licence and it lays down as under :
â3(1). No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.â
8. The learned Counsel for the complainant has however relied on the following three authorities in support of his contention that notwithstanding the subsequent renewal of the driving licence, as and when driving licence is renewed, the same would relate back to the date when the earlier licence had expired. The first authority relied on is reported in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sher Ali and Ors., 2000 ACJ 507, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. The learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court repelled the contention made on behalf of the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. that the respondent No. 3 did not possess any valid licence renewed on the date of accident by holding in para 3 as under :
â3. This argument is said for rejection since the term of contract is also that a person who holds or had held licence and was not disqualified could be a good driver. In such circumstances there is no reason to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The licence was thereafter renewed, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was driven by any incompetent person. In such circumstances on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant there cannot be any interference in the lower Courts judgment. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.â
9. It may be mentioned that the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not specifically consider the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding the renewal of the licence after the expiry of the grace period of 30 days. The appeal was decided rather summarily only on the ground that the driver was not incompetent to drive the vehicle. In our considered view, this authority is of no help to the complainant.
10. The next authority relied on is reported in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Amrabhai Mulabhai Ratod, III (1995) CPJ 91, of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad. The Gujarat State Consumer Commission was of the view that when the licence is renewed, the same would be effective retrospectively and the driver would be held as holding a valid and effective driving licence. In the facts of the case before the Gujarat State Consumer Commission, the driving licence had expired on 11.2.1992 and the same was renewed on 10.4.1992. The accident had taken place a day earlier i.e. on 9.4.1992. The State Commission took into consideration the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also Rules 18 and 32 of the Rules framed thereunder and thereafter observed, inter alia, as under :
â...It must, therefore, be held that the driver of the vehicle in question was holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident which took place on April 9, 1992. There is, therefore, no breach of any term of the insurance policy by the respondent.â
11. The third and the last authority relied on by the learned Counsel for the complainant is reported in the case of Mohd. Shakeel Siddiqui v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., III (1995) CPJ 165, of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow. In the case before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, the complainants taxi had been forcibly taken by the passengers on 16.6.1991. A claim petition was filed which was not settled. The opposite party-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. took the stand that the driver of the taxi was not holding licence which had expired on 5.4.1991 and had been renewed on 8.7.1991. In other words, the driver was not holding the renewed licence on the date of the occurrence i.e. 16.6.1991. The State Consumer Commission of Uttar Pradesh, however, held that the driver was not disqualified from holding such licence and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had to indemnify the complainant. The Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has in the case reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadav Narendrabhai Jethabhai, I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC), decided a Revision Petition No. 39 of 1995 on 24.1.1996 against an order passed in appeal by Gujarat State Consumer Commission and held in paras 7, 8 and 9 as under :
â7. It is not disputed before us that under the terms of the policy the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate the insurer for any loss occurring to the vehicle is conditional on the driver of the vehicle possessing an effective licence at the time of occurrence of the loss. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the topic of ârenewal of driving licences. Sub-section (1) of the said section so far as it is material for our present purpose, lays down :
(1) Any Licensing Authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.
8. In the light of the clear mandate contained in the provision to the section that in a case where the application for renewal of the licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed only with effect from the date of such renewal, we find it impossible to uphold the view expressed by the State Commission that whenever a driving licence is renewed, such renewal would automatically take effect from the date of expiry of the original licence. The said view overlooks the clear terms of the proviso which are mandated in nature.
9. In the present case the driving licence of Bhavsar Priyakant Mafatlal had expired as early as on 11th November, 1979 and the application of renewal had been filed only after a lapse of nearly 12 years. Such being the factual situation, the renewed driving licence could be effective only from 21st May, 1991, that being the date on which the renewal was actually granted. Hence on the date when the accident occurred the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective and valid driving licence. The Insurance Company was, therefore, fully justified in repudiating its liability in respect of the claim put forward by the complainant.â
This authority was relied on by Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party-Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The Honble National Consumer Commission has overruled the view taken by the Gujarat State Commission and held that where the driving licence is renewed beyond the grace period of 30 days as provided under Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the renewal of the licence would be treated to be from the date of renewal and the same would not be held to be retrospective in effect and consequently it could not be held that such a driver held a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Honble National Consumer Commission, the views expressed to the contrary by the State Consumer Commissions of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh cannot be given effect to. Resultantly, we find that the opposite party-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complaint lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges.