National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vijaya Devi

-THIS is an appeal against the order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the District Forum., Tehri, Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for recovery of Rs. 38,000/- (Rupees thirty-eight thousand).

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint that she is the owner of the vehicle No. UA07A-4970 (registered as Ambassador Taxi). It met with an accident on 8.9.2002 at Tehri-Srinagar road near Pokhal. THE complainant spent Rs. 38,350/- (Rupees thirty-eight thousand three hundred fifty) in its repairs. THE Insurance Company is not paying the amount of expenses, although the vehicle was insured on the date of accident. She has lodged the claim on 10.9.2002. It was repudiated on 26.12.2002 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding driving licence endorsed for hill area, therefore, the driving was against the terms of the policy and, therefore, the claim was repudiated. This is exactly the written statement of the appellant who has filed this appeal also on the same ground.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Admittedly this is Ambassador Car. Admittedly it was registered as Taxi. Admittedly it met with an accident. There is no dispute regarding the expenses of the repair of the vehicle. The only dispute is that the driver was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant referred the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Neelam Saluja, reported in I (2004) CPJ 279=2004 CLR 318, in which it was held that in case of private vehicles, such endorsement is not necessary. Under Rule 190 of the Motor Vehicle Act Rules. "No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a registering authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such registering authority or in the case of public service vehicle hired to tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon."

Admittedly the vehicle is registered as taxi. Merely because it was going with family members, it would not become a private vehicle. Our attention was drawn on the notification of the office of the Transport Commissioner, Uttaranchal that in Chardham Journey endorsement for hill driving is not necessary. There is no case that this vehicle was on Chardham Yatra. Therefore, it is clear that the notification will not apply. In the F.I.R. dated 8.9.2002 also it is not said that the vehicle was on Chardham yatra. It is, therefore, clear that the vehicle was being driven without endorsement for driving on hill area.

OUR attention was also drawn on the judgment given by this Commission in Appeal No. 127/2003, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chepari Devi, decided on 21.10.2003, wherein it has been held: "However there is also judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 384/2002, National Insurance Company v. Deen Dayal Chamoli, in which it was decided that according to control of Traffic Rules, 1993, the claimant can get compensation on Non-standard Basis. This judgment was given by this Commission on the basis of ruling of National Commission reported in II 2001 CPJ 53, National Insurance Company v. Munni Lal Yadav. In the ruling reported in 2003 CPJ 204, Oriental Insurance Co. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal, the National Commission has again held that when the driver was not having valid driving licence the claim can be allowed on Non-standard Basis, i.e., 75% of the assessed amount."

In view of what has been said above the complainant was entitled only to the claim on non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the claim amount. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 37,140/- (Rupees thirty-seven thousand one hundred forty) say it roughly Rs. 37,000/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand), on non-standard basis the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 27,750/- (Rupees twenty-seven thousand seven hundred fifty only). The complainant has also been allowed a sum of Rs. 860/- (Rupees eight hundred sixty only) as cost of litigation, which appears to be perfectly justified. In this way the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,610/- (Rupees twenty-eight thousand six hundred ten only). ORDER The appeal is hereby partly allowed and partly dismissed. The order of the learned Forum is hereby modified to the extent that the complainant shall get a sum of Rs. 28,610/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand six hundred ten only) from the appellant, which is to be paid within a month. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Complaint partly allowed.