AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
The brief facts relevant for disposal of the case are that the complainant had insured his vehicle with the OP - insurance co. for the period from 04.12.2014 to 03.12.2015. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 20.08.2015, the insured vehicle met with an accident. The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver was not holding an effective and valid licnece. Being aggrieved, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, Shimla.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party - insurance co. and it was contended that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess an effective and a valid driving license. The insured vehicle was being plied on the road in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The license of the driver was expired on 19.04.2015 and it was not renewed within 30 days from the date of expiry. It was renewed only on 27.08.2015 i.e. it was after the date of accident on 20.08.2015. Hence, the opposite party - insurance co. was justified in repudiating the claim.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 28.04.2017 had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party - insurance co. to pay a sum of Rs. 5,07,512/- with interest @ 9 % p.a from the date of filing complaint till payment. The opposite party - insurance company is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as punitive damages on account of harassment and mental agony with Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost. The District Forum had observed as below:
In support of its case the OP-company has placed reliance upon the DL verification report, Annexure R-2 made by its surveyor Sh. Suresh Sharma. But this verification report has not been duly proved on record by filing affidavit of the said surveyor. The photocopies of the driving license annexed to the verification report, Annexure R-2 , shows that initially the complainant was issued driving license by RLA , Shimla (U) on 31.3.2015 authorizing him to drive LMV(NT) w.e.f. 31.3.2015 . This license was initially made valid up to 19.4.2015 , but made effective w.e.f. 31.3.2015 from the date when his license was initially issued in favour of the complainant. Under the rules , if the applicant makes application within one month from the date of expiry of the driving license in that case the driving license is renewed from the date of the expiry of the same. The OP-company has placed on record no material to show that the complainant had applied for renewal of his driving license more than 30 days after its expiry. Since the RLA has renewed the driving license of the complainant w.e.f. 31.3.2015 , therefore the presumption is that the complainant had made application for extending the validity of his driving license within the time stipulated under the rules. Therefore , it cannot be said that on the date of this incident i.e. 20.8.2015 , the complainant did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. In view of this, the repudiation of the claim made by the OPs is not legal and valid.
The surveyor appointed by the OPs has assessed the loss of the complainant at Rs. 5,56,038/- on repair basis which is more than the IDV of the vehicle which is Rs.5,08,512/-. The complainant has also claimed compensation on total loss basis. In view of this, the complainant is entitled to compensation to the extent of the insured value of the vehicle i.e. 5,08,512/-. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.1000/- is to be deducted on account of excess clause. Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.5,07,512/-. (paras 9 and 10 of the District Forum's Order)
Being aggrieved by the abovesaid Order of the District Forum, the opposite party - insurance co. filed an appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission vide its Order dated 07.03.2019 had partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum. The State Commission ordered the complainant to return salvage of the vehicle within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Order. If the complainant failed to comply the terms and conditions within one month, then the ins. co. would be legally entitled to deduct the salvage value of the vehicle in alternative from the total amount of Rs. 5,07,512/- . The latest driving license annexure C-6 would form part and parcel of order. The relevant paragraphs of State Commission's observation are reproduced as below:
" 13. Submission of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that driver Tek Singh Negi was not legally competent to drive vehicle at the time of accident and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused registration certificate Annexure C-1 placed on record. As per registration certificate class of vehicle No. HP-52B-0504 was mentioned as LMV car. State Commission has also carefully perused latest driving licence annexure C-6 placed on record. As per latest licence annexure C-6 placed on record licence was renewed on dated 27.08.2015 by the licensing authority w.e.f. 31.03.2015 for LMV vehicle and same was valid till 26.08.2020.
State Commission has also perused former licence issued by licensing authority on dated 31.03.2015 which was valid upto 19.04.2015. No satisfactory explanation given as to why license was issued for nineteen days only by the licensing authority. Insurance company did not examine any official from the licensing authority in order to clarify ambiguity in the licenses dated 31.03.2015 and 27.08.2015 issued by the same licensing authority. Onus to clarify the contradiction was upon the insurance company. Plea of insurance company that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident is defeated in the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof) in view of conflicting licenses dated 31.03.2015 and 27.08.2015 placed on record issued by competent authority. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between former licence and subsequent licence issued by competent authority then subsequent licence issued by the competent authority always prevail unless contrary is proved.
Being dis-satisfied by the abovesaid order, the opposite party-insurance has filed the instant revision petition before this Commission.
Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record.
A careful reading of the proviso of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shows that even after the expiry of the driving license, it continues to be effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry. The complainant had renewed his driving license till 26.08.2020. The renewed license was made effective from 31.3.2015 i.e the date when the complainant was issued a driving license initially.
Section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for renewal of a driving license. It is reproduced below :
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: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence.
Based on foregoing discussion, in our considered view, the complainant had applied for renewal of the driving licence well within time, thus he was holding a valid driving license at the time of accident.
We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence on revision. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
The revision petition is dismissed.
Per Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member
The short point in this case is that the complainant was holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle (LMV) that was valid upto 31.03.2015.
His car, which was a light motor vehicle, met with an accident on 20.08.2015.
The insurance company repudiated his claim on the sole ground that he was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident i.e. on 20.08.2015.
However, his driving licence was under renewal, and was renewed w.e.f. 31.03.2015 with validity upto 26.08.2020. That is to say, the renewal was made by the licensing authority w.e.f. 31.03.2015 itself.
As such, there was no period beyond 31.03.2015 and upto the date of the accident i.e. 20.08.2015, and even beyond (the validity of the renewed licence being upto 26.08.2020), when the complainant did not hold a valid driving licence.
It is nobody's case that the licensing authority, duly empowered to issue licences under the MV Act 1988, erred in any manner in renewing the licence w.e.f. 31.03.2015 itself. There is nothing on record that the insurance company either made a complaint against the licensing authority to its superior or to any authority, or took any steps to implead the licensing authority or get its version / evidence duly placed on record. The allegations qua the validity of the driving licence and qua its effective date of renewal were made by the insurance company. The onus to prove its allegations was on the insurance company, which onus the insurance company failed to discharge.
An FIR was also lodged with the police on 20.08.2015 itself in respect of the accident. There is nothing on record that the police took any action against the complainant for driving a vehicle without a valid driving licence.
It is admitted that premium had been duly paid by the complainant. It is also admitted that the subject policy was valid on the date of the accident.
This Commission finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two fora below in its revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Act 1986.
The revision petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed.
The award made by the State Commission in its Order dated 07.03.2018 is confirmed with the following modifications:
[a] The time period fixed by the State Commission for the complainant to return "salvage of vehicle" and to "execute subrogation deed" etc. in para 17 of its Order dated 07.03.2018 shall be one month from the date of pronouncement of this instant Order of this Commission, the same being reasonable and fair.
[b] The amount awarded by the State Commission shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till its actual realisation (as was awarded by the District Forum in its Order dated 28.04.2017), the same being fair and equitable. [Agitating, unsuccessfully, in one, two, and now, three, consumer protection fora, over a period of four years, between 2015 to 2019, cannot be overlooked or ignored to the detriment of the complainant; the lumpsum award should, in all fairness and equity, carry reasonable rate of interest.]
The insurance company shall comply with this instant Order of this Commission within one month of its pronouncement, failing which, the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.
Let a copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the District Forum and to the complainant within seven days of its pronouncement.