MOHD. SHAKEEL SIDDIQUI vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS is a complaint presented by Mohd. Shakeel Siddiqui against the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Opposite Party). It has been contended in the complaint in brief that the complainant took Insurance Policy of Rs. 1,20,000/- for his taxi. Ambassador car No. U.M.T.1071 (which was financed by the Bank) from the Opposite Party. The policy was valid for the period with effect from 17.3.91 to 16.3.92 and during the currency of this policy on 16.6.91 his insured Ambassador car which was driven by the driver Tafzul Husain was forcibly taken away by some passengers who booked it and thereby he was put to loss by such theft of the said Ambassador car. He (complainant) immediately lodged First Information Report with the local police of Police Station, Imalia and also sent intimation to the Insurance Company through a letter on 24.6.91 and lodged his claim but despite repeated requests through personal contact and a notice dated 1.10.92 to the Opposite Party he was not indemnified by it for the loss caused to him by the theft of his insured car (taxi). The complainant filed the present complaint praying that the Opposite Party be directed to indemnify the loss of his insured vehicle and be paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- equal to the insured amount, with 18% interest per annum thereon plus the interest @ 12% which the complainant had to pay to the Banker on the loan advance and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

IN the written statement filed by the Opposite Party it has been contended though admitted the fact of First INformation Report, final report and claim intimation sent by the complainant, that complainant''s claim had been repudiated vide letter dated 30.11.92 on the basis of the report of M/s Mohan INvestigator who reported vide his report dated 3.11.92 that the vehicle in question on the date of incident of theft (16.6.91) was driven by the driver Tafzul Husain who had no effective driving licence during the period with effect from 5.4.91 to 7.7.91 and particularly on 16.6.91 and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the claim was not genuine because the vehicle was not driven by the driver having effective and valid licence. The Opposite Party has further asserted that since the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on 30.11.92 the State Commission has no jurisdiction to probe into it. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel Mr. M.S. Kotwal, Advocate for the Opposite Party and Mr. Mohd. Khalid Advocate for the complainant and perused the documents and affidavits filed by both the parties on record.

There appears to be no dispute with regard to the theft of the insured Ambassador car No. U.M.T. 1017 on 16.6.91 as is evident from the copy of the First Information Report and final report of the police duly accepted by the Magistrate and that said car was also insured for Rs. 1,20,000/- for the period with effect from 17.3.91 to 16.3.92 during which the loss by taking away the said Insured vehicle was caused on 16.6.91. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had lodged his claim with the Opposite Party in time and the same was not settled till the complaint was presented on 20.10.92. As per Opposite Party''s written statement it is evident that the acts i.e., M/s. Mohan Investigators report dated 3.11.92 and repudiation of the claim on 30.11.92 were done during the pendency of these proceedings of the present complaint under Section 17(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. The arguments of the learned Counsel for Opposite Party have no force regarding the jurisdiction under the Act and we turned down accordingly because despite the claim lodged with Opposite Party, repeated contacts made and notice dated 1.10.92 given to the Opposite Party by the complaint, no timely action was taken on his claim and therefore committed deficiency in service which the Opposite Party was supposed to discharge and all the actions appear to have been taken as after thought since the complainant filed his complaint case before this Commission.

THE learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has given stress on the term of the policy saying that according to the term No. 5 of the policy the owner of the insured vehicle or the person authorised by him can drive the said insured vehicle provided the person, driving the vehicle, holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding effective driving licence to drive the category of the Motor Vehicle insured and in the present case when alleged theft was committed on 16.6.91 the insured vehicle as admitted by the complainant was driven by Tafzul Husain driver who possessed a driving licence valid from 5.4.88 to 4.4.91 and again 8.7.91 to 7.7.94 and, therefore, it was not effective and valid for the period from 5.4.91 to 7.7.91 during which the incident of theft was committed on 16.6.91 and thus the complainant did not fulfill the term of the Insurance Policy and, therefore, the claim is not genuine and consequently the Opposite Party has rightly repudiated his claim and as such he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. To this argument the learned Counsel for the complainant has invited our attention to paragraph 2 of page 3 of the report of M/s. Mohan Investigator which is dated 3.11.92 and filed by the Opposite Party with its written statement which runs as following: "The driving licence of Sri Tafzul was not valid on 16.6.91, so it is very much clear, that driving licence was not effective on the date of incident 16.6.91. But he was holder of permanent driving licence on 16.6.91 and was not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence."

THIS report confirms that the driver Tafzul Husain was never disqualified to hold a driving licence and that he had a permanent licence on the date of incident that is 16.6.91 but it was not valid on 16.6.1991 as it was not renewed. The learned Counsel for the complainant pressed his arguments saying that the driver was holding a permanent driving licence established by the evidence of the Opposite Party also and he got his licence renewed later on with effect from 8.7.91 to 7.7.91 and according to the term No. 5 of the Insurance Policy issued by the Opposite Party for the insured vehicle in question which (insured vehicle) could be driven by the owner himself or by any person authorised by him provided he holds a licence or had held and have not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder to drive the insured vehicle. According to him the driver Tafzul Husain had satisfied all the conditions as required in the terms 5 cited above. He had a permanent licence (admitted by the Opposite Party also) with effect from 5.4.88 though he could not get renewed for a short period from 5.4.91 to 7.7.91 but again got renewed from 8.7.91 to 7.7.94 and that he was not disqualified to hold such licence as confirmed by the Opposite Party''s Investigator (Mohan Investigator) in his report dated 3.11.92. Thus according to the complainant''s Counsel the vehicle in question was driven on 16.6.91 by the qualified driver Tafzul Husain who had a permanent driving licence and thereby all terms of the insurance policy were carried out and there was no default on the part of the complainant or his driver Tafzul Husain and the competence of the driver Tafzul Husain was never questioned by any one before and after the incident of l6.6.91. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 about the effectiveness of the driving licence of Motor Vehicle. Section 14(2) of the said Act says that a driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall be effective for three years in case of transport vehicle either from the date of original issue or renewal thereof and in other cases the driving licence shall be affective either original issue or renewal thereof in respect of a person who has not attained the age of 40 years on the date of issue or, as the case may be renewal thereof for 20 years from the date of issue of renewal or until the date on which such person attains the age forty years whichever is earlier and after the attainment of the age of 40 years, the licence will be effective for five years from the date of issue or renewal as the case may be. Section 15(i) provides that a licence can be renewed with effect from the date of its expiry if the application is moved within 30 days of its expiry but in case of the renewal application filed after 30 days the renewal will be with effect from the date of its renewal. Thus it is very clear that according to the above provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the licence of Tafzul Husain which was expired on 5.4.1991 but the renewal application was given after thirty days from its expiry and therefore it was renewed from 8.7.91 to 7.7.94 for H.G.V. and H.P.M.V and it was not renewed for the period with effect from 5.4.91 the date of expiry to 7.7.91. But the driver was not disqualified to hold such licence which he had held earlier and again after some time got it''s renewal. The above discussed provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deal with grant of driving licence and renewal thereof. But in the present case the matter is entirely different as for the term No. 5 of the insurance policy on which the learned Counsel of the complainant has laid stress. According to this term the insured vehicle (here the Ambassador car U.M.T.1071) could be driven by the owner or any person employed or authorised by him provided "he holds or had held and has not been disqualified to hold or obtain such driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder. Hence these words" "or had held (a driving licence) and has not been disqualified from holding or obtaining such a driving licence" suggest that even if the driver had held a licence whether permanent or temporary or learners licence and subsequently was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence the Insurance Company cannot escape the liability even if on the date of incident or accident the driver did not have a licence and the fact that he had earlier a permanent driving licence and was not disqualified to hold such licence on the date of the incident is sufficient to bind the liability on the Insurance Company. In the present case it is admitted as per the report dated 3.11.92 of Mohan Investigator annexed to the written statement of the Opposite Party and supported by the affidavit dated 26.5.93 of Sri L.R. Lamba, Manager of the Opposite Party that the driver Sri Tafzul Husain had a permanent driving licence though not renewed for short period from 5.4.91 to 7.7.91 and that he was not disqualified to hold or obtain such licence. Hence the Opposite Party cannot escape the liability to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant who was deprived of his insured vehicle by some passengers on the way from the possession of the driver Tafzul Husain by force on 16.6.91, during the currency of the insurance policy. Counsel for the complainant has tried to bring home his point that the complainant''s case is not related to any accident in which the vehicle could be damaged due to some negligence or rash driving of the vehicle by the driver who had no effective licence and could be held responsible for his in-experience or negligence of his duty in driving the insured vehicle. The present case as per the complaint related to theft of the insured vehicle from the possession of the driver Tafzul Husain who was authorised to drive it by the complainant and he suffered loss of the vehicle as such by the theft and not by any accident due to the rash driving or negligence in driving on the part of the driver. This argument has force and appeals to us. Theft could be committed at any place and from the possession of any person who had been given charge to look after. Thus it is a pure and simple case of theft of the insured vehicle on 16.6.91 during the currency of the insurance policy and therefore the complainant is entitled to be indemnified by the Opposite Party (Insurance Company) for the loss caused by such theft to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- for which the Ambassador car (Taxi) U.M.T. 1017 was insured comprehensively. The Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service by not indemnifying the loss and not accepting the claim of the complainant as prayed in time. The repudiation of the complainant''s claims on technical ground during the pendency of these proceedings before this Commission is not justified. The complainant is also entitled to 18% interest per annum with effect from the date of the incident that is 16.6.91 till the date of actual payment. Since the complainant has been forced to move from one resource to another and has suffered torture and mental agony and harassment at the hands of the Opposite Party, he is also entitled to be compensated by the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 5000/-and Rs. 1000/- as costs of these proceedings in addition to the above relief. ORDER

WE, therefore, order and direct the Opposite Party (The New India Assurance Company Ltd.), to pay to the Complainant Mohd. Shakeel Siddiqui a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- (one lakh twenty thousand) along with interest @ 18% per annum thereon with effect from 16.6.91 to the date of payment, compensation of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 1000/-as costs to these proceedings within 30 days from the date of this order failing which compliance would necessarily be enforced under the provisions as contained in Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint allowed with costs.