B.C. Kandpal, President:
1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 355 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.59,796/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @9% p.a. pendente lite and future and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/-. However, the learned President of the District Forum vide his dissenting order of the even date, dismissed the consumer complaint.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No. UA-12-2282. The said truck is being driven by the complainant. Along with the complainant, Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht also remains in the truck as Assistant Driver. Both the said persons have driving licence in their favour. The driving licence of Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht was valid for the period from 13.04.2006 to 12.04.2009 and he was authorised to drive light motor vehicle (transport). Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht submitted an application to the Regional Transport Office, Rishikesh on 15.04.2006 for authorizing him to drive heavy transport vehicle and he was issued learning driving licence for heavy transport vehicle, which was valid for the period from 15.04.2006 to 14.10.2006. It is alleged that by the said vehicle, gas cylinders were transported from Haridwar to Karanprayag and on 23.04.2006, after unloading the gas cylinders, when the truck was coming back to the gas plant at Bahadarabad, Haridwar, it met with an accident with another truck bearing No. RJ-191G-8064. In the said accident, the insured truck was damaged and the complainant as well as Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht sustained injuries. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated by the insurance company vide their letter dated 08.08.2007 on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellants filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht was issued a learning driving licence only in respect of heavy transport vehicle; that there was violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; that on investigation of the matter, it was found that at the time of the accident, Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht was driving the vehicle; that there was no depiction of mark of œL? on any part of the vehicle; that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.59,796/- and that there is no deficiency in service on their part by repudiating the claim.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 18.08.2009 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent “ complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that on the date of the accident Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht was holding a learning driving licence in respect of heavy transport vehicle, which was valid upto 14.10.2006. The accident in question took place on 23.04.2006. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that at the time of the accident, the complainant, who was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, was sitting along with Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht and they both sustained injuries in the accident.
7. The copy of the learning driving licence of Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht is on record (Paper No. 60). By the said learning driving licence, the holder thereof has been authorised to drive the particular class of vehicle only when he is accompanied by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence for the said class of vehicle. In the instant case, admittedly, the complainant, who was holding a valid and effective driving licence in his favour, was sitting along with Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, it can not be said that the condition laid down in the learning driving licence was breached or not followed in any manner.
8. So far as the depiction of mark of œL? on any part of the vehicle is concerned, the insurance company has not filed any evidence to show that there was no depiction of mark of œL? on any part of the vehicle. The photographs of the vehicle have also not been filed by the insurance company in order to substantiate their claim in this regard. Even otherwise, in the letter dated 15.03.2007 (Paper No. 35) written by the complainant to the insurance company, he has stated that he had given the vehicle to Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht while they were about to enter Haridwar and previously, he was himself driving the vehicle. However, as is stated above, the insurance company has not been able to prove by any cogent and reliable evidence that there was no depiction of mark of œL? on any part of the vehicle. Thus, there was no violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the part of the complainant and the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants cited a decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others; AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1150, wherein it was held that the person having learners licence can not be regarded as duly licenced. In the present case, as is stated above, the condition laid down in the learning driving licence was duly complied with and the complainant, holding a valid and effective driving licence, was sitting along with him. Learned counsel also cited a decision of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in the case of National Insurance Company Limited and another Vs. Daljit Singh Logia; III (2010) CPJ 368. In the said case, it was held that the presence of trained person besides the driver holding learners licence is a necessary condition and the mark of œL? should be affixed on front and rear part of the vehicle. In the case in hand, as is stated above, the complainant was accompanying Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and the insurance company has not been able to prove that there was no depiction of mark of œL? on any part of the vehicle.
10. So far as the quantum is concerned, the District Forum has awarded the compensation of Rs.59,796/- on the basis of the survey report, which can not be said to be unjustified and on the higher side. However, we are of the view that the interest awarded by the District Forum @9% p.a. is on the higher side and the same need to be reduced to 7% p.a. The litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the District Forum are also justified. Thus, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 18.08.2009 passed by the District Forum is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7% p.a. Rest of the impugned order passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.