Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral)
1. This is a complainants appeal against the order dated 08.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed, with the finding that the person, who was driving the insured vehicle, at the time, when accident took place, resulting in damage to the insured vehicle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, inasmuch as there was no endorsement on the licence for driving a transport vehicle.
2. Appellant owned a truck (heavy goods vehicle), which was insured with the respondent in the sum of Rs.4,15,000/- for the period from 07.08.2009 to 06.08.2010. On 11.04.2010, vehicle met with an accident and was completely damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent. A Surveyor was deputed, who though reported that this was a case of total loss and assessed the salvage value at Rs.1,25,000/-, yet the respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that Harish Sharma, who was driving the truck, at the relevant time, did not possess a licence to drive a transport vehicle and there were three passengers, on board the truck, in addition to the driver, when the accident had taken place and those persons were gratuitous passenger.
3. Appellant felt aggrieved by the repudiation of his claim and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Direction was sought to the respondent to pay insurance money, with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
4. Respondent contested the complaint and denied its liability, on the same grounds, on which claim had been repudiated.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, holding that repudiation of claim was justified, as the person driving the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and there were three unauthorized passengers, on board the vehicle.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. Driving licence of Harish Sharma is available on the record of learned District Forum at page-163. Licence authorizes the holder to drive motorcycle, light motor vehicle, medium motor vehicle and heavy motor vehicle. Licence is valid from 10.03.2009 to 09.03.2012. Licence is duplicate and was issued on 19.04.2011. Necessity for obtaining duplicate licence appears to have arisen, because the driver of the vehicle, namely Harish Sharma, died in the accident and the original licence could not be traced. Licence is issued by District Transport Officer, Wokha, Nagaland.
8. Contention of the respondent is that the licence does not authorize the holder to drive a transport vehicle and that after the amendment, carried out in the format of licence, vide JSR-221 (E) dated 28th March, 2001, endorsement for driving a transport vehicle is must, if the holder has to drive a transport vehicle.
9. Vide aforesaid notification dated 28th March, 2001, the format of licence was modified, by making certain changes in Form No.6, appended to Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The changed format provides for issuance of licences, in respect of following categories of vehicles:-
(i) Motorcycle without gear;
(ii) Motorcycle with gear;
(iii) Invalid Carriage
(iv) Light Motor Vehicle;
(v) Transport Vehicle;
(vi) Medium Passenger Motor Vehicle; or
(vii) A Motor Vehicle of specific descriptions.
The format also speaks of endorsements, which read like this:-
(i) Licence to drive a motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle is valid from “--- to “----
(ii) Licence to drive transport vehicle is valid from “--- to ----.
10. Licence, in the name of Harish Sharma, though issued in the year 2009, was not on the new format given in Form No.6. The same is on Form No.7, pertaining to laminated smart card like licences. Of course, Form No.7 also requires endorsement for non-transport and transport vehicles, to be made, but in the case of licence, in question, endorsements for transport/ non-transport vehicles are not printed on the format, which indicates that the licence is issued on old format, i.e. to say the format, which was in vogue, prior to issuance of the aforesaid notification of March, 2001.
11. However, from the duration for which the licence was valid, it can be spelt out by reference to Section-14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether it authorised the holder to drive a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle. Section 14 (2) (a) says that a driving licence for a transport vehicle shall be effective for a period of three yeaRs.Section 14 (2) (b) says that a driving licence for other vehicles shall be valid for a period of twenty years in case the person is below fifty years of age and does not to attain the age of fifty years within that period of twenty years, or until he attains the age of fifty years and where the person has attained the age of fifty years, the period of effectiveness of the licence shall be five years and thereafter renewal would be required. The holder of licence in this case was born on 10.04.1962. That means he could have been issued a licence upto 09.04.2012, if the licence is for the purpose of driving a vehicle other than a transport vehicle.
12. In the present case, the period of effectiveness of the licence was three years and it was to expire on 09.03.2012. Therefore, the presumption is that the licence was issued to enable the holder to drive a transport vehicle, in accordance with Section 14 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
13. Since, the holder was authorised to drive heavy motor vehicles, which can be said to include both, goods carriage and passenger carrying vehicles, he was authorised to drive the vehicle, in question.
14. Next ground of repudiation of claim is that there were four persons, including the driver, on board the vehicle, when accident took place. Registration certificate of the vehicle is available on the record of learned District Forum at page-99. Seating capacity of the vehicle is œ3?. There were four persons, including driver, when accident took place. That means there was only one person extra and for this reason, claim could not have been repudiated in its entirety. It could have been lawfully settled on non-standard basis, by paying 75% of the sum assured.
15. Learned counsel representing the respondent submits that three persons, other than the driver, were gratuitous passengers and, therefore, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim in its entirety. Contention, whether the persons, other than the driver, were gratuitous passengers or authorised passengers has little bearing in a case, pertaining to own damage claim. It is relevant in a case, where the claim is for death or injury to a third person.
16. In view of the above stated position, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and allow the complaint. Surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company reported vide report, Annexure R-6 that this was a case of total loss. He assessed the salvage value at Rs.1,25,000/- plus/minus 10%.
17. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the appellant intends to retain the salvage. So, we hold that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,11,250/- (equivalent to 75% of the sum assured), less Rs.1,000/- on account of excess clause, less Rs.1,25,000/- on account of salvage value= Rs.1,85,250/-. Accordingly, we direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,250/- on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 07.07.2011, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and another sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of costs.
18. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.