United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Narinder Singh - Court Judgment

K.C. Gupta, President:

1. This appeal has been directed by opposite parties against order dated 29.1.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Panipat (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide which the complaint of respondent Narinder Singh was accepted and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 15.2.2000 till payment.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent Narinder Singh (complainant) is owner of jeep Mark Mahindra and Mahindra maxicab bearing registration No. HR-06B/0219 of 1997 model. The jeep was duly insured with the appellant No. 2 vide cover note with effect from 24.7.1998 to 23.7.1999 . Sh. Pushpinder Singh used to drive the said vehicle and was having valid driving licence issued by R.T.O. Sonitpur, Assam.

3. It was next averred that the jeep in question was hit by truck bearing No. HR-29/2695 and consequently FIR was lodged bearing No. 65 dated 21.3.1999 with the police Station, Samalkha. Respondent also informed appellant No. 2 about the accident. Accordingly Surveyor was appointed on 30.3.1999 who assessed loss to the extent of Rs. 2,95,330.90 but the appellants passed claim of Rs. 1,78,000. However, even the said amount was not paid.

4. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed.

5. Appellants contested the complaint and stated that the driving licence of Pushpinder Singh was not valid and effective and as such the claim was rightly repudiated. They further stated that the Surveyor had not assessed the claim to the extent of Rs. 2,95,330.90 and further the claim to the extent of Rs. 1,78,000 was never passed and at the time of accident the market value of the jeep was not more than Rs. 1,50,000 and out of which salvage value was of Rs. 4,000.

6. Parties adduce their evidence by way of affidavits.

7. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 29.1.2002 accepted the complaint as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties have filed the present appeal.

9. We have heard Counsel for appellants Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, advocate, Counsel for respondent Mr.Varun Katyal, Advocate and carefully gone through the file.

10. It is an admitted fact that jeep having registration No. HR-06B/0219 of 1997 model of Mahindra and Mahindra make was registered as Maxi cab . It is further an admitted fact that the said jeep was insured with appellant No. 2 with effect from 24.7.98 to 23.7.1999 and further it met with an accident on 21.3.1999. Thus, at the time of accident the jeep was validly insured with United India Insurance Company. There is also no dispute about it that Sh. Pushpinder Singh was driving the said jeep at the time of accident.

11. Section 2(22) of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 defines “Maxi cab” as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward. Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act defines “light Motor vehicle as a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. Section 2(17) of Motor vehicles Act defines “heavy passenger motor Vehicle” as any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of any of which , or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms. Certainly weight of jeep does not exceed 12,000 kilograms and does not come under the definition of heavy passenger motor vehicle because more or less it is a light motor vehicle. It is not heavy goods vehicle as defined under Section 2(16) of Motor Vehicles Act. It may be true that PSV (Public Service Vehicle) or transport endorsement was required if vehicle was passenger carrying vehicle coming under the definition of Heavy Passenger Motor vehicle. From the mere fact that it is a maxi cab which is meant for carrying passengers, PSV endorsement is not required.

12. A perusal of the endorsement of District Transport Officer, Sonitpur, Tejpur, Assam dated 6.11.2000 shows that Sh. Pushipinder Singh was holding driving licence for motor cycle and heavy goods(transport vehicle) since 30.9.1997 which expired on 29.9.2000. Thus, at the time of accident on 21.3.1999 the driver Sh. Pushpinder Singh was having driving licence for driving heavy motor vehicles. Since, jeep was a maxi cab, a light motor vehicle, so, he had also got licence to drive light motor vehicle even if it does not specifically mention because a person who could drive heavy passenger vehicle could also drive maxicab/jeep. In our opinion, there was no need of making endorsement of PSV/transport. We fail to understand how the report filed by respondent during trial in the District Consumer Forum regarding verification could not be taken into consideration. Even if a document is produced on file during trial then same could be taken into consideration.

13. It is not a transport vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The authority of Haryana State Consumer Commission titled Mandip Bus Service v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., bearing Appeal No. 224 of 1998 decided on 30.7.2001 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, we hold that there is no force in the appeal and the claim had been rightly allowed.

14. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000.

15. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.