AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.02.2014, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 311/2012, "Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Irfan Nurmohammad Memon", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 21.01.2012, passed by the District Forum Surat in consumer complaint No. 218/2009, filed by the present respondent/complainant, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant, Irfan Nurmohammad Memon obtained a motor insurance policy from the petitioner insurance company for the period 28.01.2008 to 27.01.2009 in respect of his Maruti Omni Cargo vehicle, bearing registration No. GJ5YY5952 on 21.11.2008. The vehicle, while being driven by the first cousin of the complainant met with an accident with a truck, bearing registration No. GRY 4610. As per the complainant, at that time, his cousin was going to deliver wrist watches by loading them in the said cargo vehicle and travelling from Bhaijipura and going towards Valod. The complainant lodged a complaint with Valod Police Station as crime registration No. First 66/2008. The Insurance Company was also informed about the accident and they appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. As per the complainant, he obtained an estimate for repair of the vehicle from an authorised service station, amounting to 2 lakh and the said service station stated that exact estimates will be given afterwards. However, the surveyor appointed by the insurance company assessed the loss to be 1,23,175/- and submitted his report dated 20.12.2008. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim on the plea that the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He was holder of only a licence for Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport) issued for the period 18.05.2007 to 17.05.2027. The consumer complaint was then filed on 12.03.2009 before the District Forum, claiming a sum of 3 lakh on total loss basis and alternatively for 2.5 lakh on repair basis and other relief.
The complaint was resisted by the insurance company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the person driving the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective licence at that time and hence, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, including the driver''s clause.
The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 21.1.2012, directing that a sum of 1,23,000/- be paid to the complainant alongwith simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation and a further sum of 5,000/- be given as compensation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the insurance company filed an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the insurance company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per copy of the driving licence brought on record, the person driving the vehicle, Aftab Bhai Hanif Bhai Memon had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only, valid from 18.05.2007 to 17.05.2027. The learned counsel stated that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is mandatory to have an endorsement from the concerned transport authority for permission to drive a transport or commercial vehicle. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the driver''s clause in the insurance policy, in which it is stated that the claim was not payable unless, the person driving the vehicle had a valid and effective licence. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal" [I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)] , in which the Hon''ble Apex Court made it clear that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claim, unless there was an endorsement on the licence, giving entitlement to drive a commercial vehicle. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to orders passed by the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in "Oriental Insurance Company vs Lekh Ram & Ors." [I (2012) ACC 205] , and an order passed by this Commission in "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Arvind Kumar Rajak" [III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC)] , in support of his arguments.
Notice of the revision petition was sent to the respondent asking him to contest the petition. However, despite due service on the said respondent, none appeared for him and hence, he was proceeded against ex-parte.
We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
A plain perusal of the consumer complaint in question, reveals that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and at the time of accident, it was being used for commercial purpose, as the driver of the vehicle was going to deliver wrist watches by loading them in the said vehicle. It is also clear from record and not denied anywhere that the driver of the vehicle had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, which was valid for 20 years. Evidently, it was a licence to drive a private vehicle and not a commercial vehicle as licence for commercial vehicle is valid for three years only. Both the consumer fora below have, however, taken the plea that the vehicle in question, had gross weight not more than 7000 kg. and hence, the said vehicle came under the definition of LMV. It is clear from the facts on record that the vehicle in question, was not a medium or heavy transport vehicle, but it was a LMV being used for commercial purpose. The main issue that arises for consideration in the matter is whether the said driver was legally competent to drive such a vehicle, while being in possession of a driving licence valid for private vehicles only.
The issue has been discussed in detail in a number of judgments passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Commission from time to time. The issue of grant of driving licence for a private and a commercial vehicle was extensively dealt with by this Commission in "Oriental Insurance Company & Ors. vs. Seema" [RP No. 579/2013 decided on 06.05.2014]. After making a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999, this Commission concluded that the requirements of age, educational qualifications, medical examination, period of licence etc. for obtaining a licence for driving a transport vehicle, were distinctly different from those for getting a licence for a non-transport vehicle. In the said order, the differences/requirements for the grant of licence for transport vehicle and other vehicles were summed up as follows:-
Transport Vehicle Non-Transport Vehicle
1.
Age
The minimum age for the grant of a licence to drive a transport vehicle is 20 years
The minimum age for grant of licence for non-transport vehicle is 18 years (Section 4 of Motor Vehicles Act)
2.
Medical Certificate
Always required for grant or renewal of licence
Medical Certificate may not be required. (Section 8 of Motor Vehicles Act)
3.
Educational Qualification
The minimum qualification required for obtaining licence is 8 th standard
No qualification is prescribed. (Rule 8 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules)
4.
Validity of licence
The driving licence for driving a transport vehicle is valid for three years only.
The licence is valid for 20 years or till the person attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. (Section 14(2) of Motor Vehicles Act)
5.
No person can be granted a learner''s licence unless he has held a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle for at least one year (Section 7(1) of Motor Vehicles Act)
A person cannot appear in the driving test unless he has held a learner''s licence for at least thirty days. (Rule 15 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules)
After concluding that the basic requirements of age, educational qualifications, medical examination, period of licence etc. were entirely different for grant of licence for transport vehicle from that for non-transport vehicle, it was stated that under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, LMV means a transport vehicle as well, but this did not mean that the holder of a licence for driving a light motor vehicle was authorised to drive a light commercial vehicle or a transport vehicle as well. It is evident, therefore, that without proper authority or endorsement to this effect from a competent licencing authority, the holder of licence for a private vehicle was not authorised to drive a transport/commercial vehicle. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the orders passed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol & Ors. (supra) observed as under:- "10. The distinction between a ''light motor vehicle'' and a ''transport vehicle, is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a ''transport vehicle'' and a ''passenger vehicle'' can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a ''transport vehicle'' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years."
It has been clearly stated by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the above order that a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle as well, but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. It is clear, therefore, that if the holder of a LMV licence was authorised to drive a commercial vehicle as well, there was no necessity of prescribing distinct conditions or requirements for the grant of licence for commercial vehicle .
The view taken by the consumer for a below that the driver in question, could have driven the transport vehicle as well, since it was a LMV vehicle, is clearly erroneous in the eyes of law and hence, the orders passed by the Fora below deserved to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal" (supra) , as well, in which Hon''ble Apex Court clearly laid down that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claim, unless the endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle was made, as required by section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Based on the discussion above, the present revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the consumer fora below are set aside, being perverse in the eyes of law and the consumer complaint in question stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.