AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Sudip Ahluwalia, Member
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the Respondent/ Opposite Party challenging the impugned Order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, Uttarakhand in First Appeal No. 181 of 2015. Vide such Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tihari Garhwal in Complaint No. 14 of 2014.
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is the owner of Tipper no. EMW UK 09 CA 1359 which was insured from 28.03.2013 till 27.03.2014 and had met with an accident on 07.10.2013 at Bhagwan Jamnikhal at the side of Motor Road KM 5 while travelling from Srinagar to new Tihari, carrying stone chips. The Opposite Party was informed about the accident on 08.10.2013 and the accidental vehicle was inspected at the site. The FIR in respect of accident was lodged on 09.10.2013 and the vehicle was inspected by the Divisional Inspector on 11.10.2013. Thereafter, the Complainant had gotten the vehicle repaired and spent a total amount of Rs.2,24,261/- for that purpose. Thereafter, the Complainant constantly kept approaching the Opposite Party for payment and a Legal Notice dated 16.04.2014 was also issued. However, no payment was released by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum praying for Compensation of Rs.2,24,261/- along with interest @12%, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- for litigation costs.
The Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations, thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended that the license of the driver did not have any endorsement for driving in Hilly areas. Further, no challan receipt was given by the Complainant to the Opposite Party or the Surveyor for the goods that were loaded in the vehicle. The load challan was given to the Opposite Party at a belated stage according to which the goods loaded in the vehicle were in excess of the capacity of the vehicle, which was violative of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Policy. Further, the Complainant had also failed to give the receipts of repair charges to the Opposite Party due to which the claim could not be disposed off in time. It was also stated that the Surveyor had assessed the total damage to be Rs.77,168.25/- but since the vehicle was overloaded in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Insurance Policy, the damages of the vehicle were assessed to Rs.57,629/- vide a consent letter. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.
The Ld. District Forum vide its order dated 30.07.2015 had allowed the Complaint while observing that on the date of accident, the driver was holding a valid driving license and the argument of the Opposite Party that there was no endorsement for the driver to drive in hilly areas was not justified. It was further observed that the license does not become invalid if there is no endorsement in the driving license as per Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, Rule 193 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988 and Section 3 & 4 of Worker Compensation Act. It was further observed that the arguments of Opposite Party that the vehicle was overloaded than its capacity were not justified. Further, the bills concerning the repair of the vehicle totalled to Rs.1,48,581/-. Therefore, the Complaint of the Complainant was allowed with the directions to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs1,48,581/- along with interest @ 7% and Rs.500/- as litigation costs.
Aggrieved by the above order, the First Appeal No. 181 of 2015 was filed by Appellant/ Opposite Party against the Respondent/ Complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun.
The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 allowed the Appeal while setting aside the order of Ld. District Forum and observed that the accident took place in a hilly area, and since there was no Hill-endorsement in the driving license of the driver, so he was not entitled to the drive the vehicle on hills in absence of such endorsement in view of Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. Therefore, it was held that the driving license of the driver was not valid. The Ld. State Commission had further relied upon the judgement of this Commission in ‘Rajinder Singh Negi v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited IV (2008) CPJ 250 (NC)’ wherein it was held that ‘Hill road endorsement’ is not a mere formality.
Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the above-mentioned impugned order of the Ld. State Commission.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and the Respondent. Perused the material available on record.
While the complaint of the Petitioner had been allowed by the Ld. District Forum vide its Order passed on 30.7.2015, the State Commission set aside the said Order by holding that as there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver, Shri Bir Bahadur, so Rule 193 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 was not followed, and consequently the driver in question was not authorised to drive the vehicle in the place where the accident had occurred i.e. in District Tehri Garhwal which is a hilly area.
It was argued before us that actually the licence of the driver did bear the hill area endorsement, and a copy of the same was also filed in this Revision Petition on behalf of the Petitioner long back in the year 2017, in compliance of the direction of the then Presiding Member, Hon’ble Mr. Prem Narain to file the earlier licences of the driver from the year 1989 to 2008 where they had the relevant endorsements, which is now on record as Annexure P-6.
Authenticity of the document was disputed on behalf of the Respondent/Insurance Company which has also contended that at this stage of revision, such document can not be considered. Consequently, on 3.3.2023 we observed in our Order inter alia –
“However, attention is drawn to the copy of the letter dated 20/07/2017 issued by the PIO/Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Dehradun, the original of which is in Hindi, in which there is reference to existence of a particular Licence number containing the Hill Endorsement Clause for the period between 23/09/1989 to 09/04/2018. Copy of the Petitioner’s own Application to show exactly in what manner and language the query was put to the concerned Authority under the RTI Act is not available. Even though it is well settled that at this very late stage in Revision, a Party cannot cover its laches/omission in the lower Fora, yet in the interest of justice we still grant one more opportunity to the Petitioner/Complainant to summon the entire official Records available with the concerned Authority in Dehradun from which it may be ascertained as to when and in what circumstances the Application under the RTI Act was filed, and whether any copy of the original License in question is available in those Records.
Such opportunity is granted to the Petitioner subject to costs of ₹2,500/- payable to the Respondent Insurance Company, as the only and last opportunity, and in the event of failure of the Petitioner to secure the attendance of the concerned Officials alongwith the entire official Records, no further opportunity shall be granted, and appropriate consequences are liable to follow.”
Subsequently, the original Licence Register of the establishment of the Transport Department Uttarakhand was produced before us by Shri Naresh Chandra Pant, Chief Assistant , on 24.8.2023 from which it is verified that there actually was an endorsement on the concerned driver’s licence for the hill roads of Dehradun region w.e.f. 23.09.1989. In such circumstances, reversal of the well-reasoned order passed in favour of the Complainant by the Ld. District Forum was certainly a case of miscarriage of justice, as the repudiation of the Complainant’s legitimate claim was approved by the State Commission without going into the depth of the matter to find out whether or not the concerned driver did have a proper valid driving licence, with an endorsement authorising him to drive the vehicle in the hilly areas, which was actually the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Order is found to be untenable and is therefore set aside. The Revision Petition accordingly stands allowed after affirming the Order passed by the Ld. District Forum on 30.7.2015. No further orders as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.