NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs DEVENDRA NARAYAN DUBEY

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27. 9. 2006 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing the consumer complaint No. 63 of 2005 and directing the insurer - appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,32,800 to the complainant along with interest @ 8% p. a. from the date falling after 90 days of submitting the claim form till the date of actual payment; Rs. 9,500 towards toeing charges and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.

BRIEFLY, the facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant - respondent was the registered owner of a Marshal Jeep, which was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited (for short "insurer") - appellant for the period from 24. 8. 2003 to 23. 8. 2004. The vehicle met with an accident on 1. 4. 2004 and was totally damaged. When the complainant submitted the claim to the insurer, it was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence for hill roads at the time of the accident. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, which was allowed by the District Forum by its impugned order dated 27. 9. 2006 directing the insurer to pay the compensation, expenses and cost as stated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurer has filed this appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

The facts of the case, except the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question, are not in dispute. The complainant''s contention in respect of the driving licence of the driver of the ill-fated vehicle is that the driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority to drive a light motor vehicle throughout the territory of India and, as such, the driver of the said vehicle was authorised to drive a LMV in hill roads as well. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the driving licence was not valid for driving the vehicle in hill roads because the Licensing Authority had not endorsed it for hill roads. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, which reads as under: "193. Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads-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 a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon. "

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant argued that in the absence of such an endorsement, the driving licence of the driver was not valid for driving the vehicle on hill roads and, therefore, the repudiation of the complainant''s claim by the appellant was just and the District Forum has not considered this legal aspect of the matter and, therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside in the interest of justice. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Hon''ble Supreme Court, National Commission and different State Commissions have clearly laid down the law on this point in various judgments. Learned Counsel cited few such judgments as under: (i) The judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC)=iv (2007) SLT 102=ii (2007) ACC 28 (SC ). (ii) The judgment of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Pritam Singh, IV (2007) CPJ 169. (iii) The decision of this Commission in First Appeal No. 53 of 2007; Kailash Chandra Kalkhundia v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. , I (2008) CPJ 282, decided on 3. 1. 2008. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We also perused the photocopy of the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle (Paper No. 61 ). The vehicle in question was a light motor vehicle for commercial purpose and at the time of the accident, it was carrying newspapers and nine passengers, including the driver. The driving licence of the driver is endorsed for LMV (C), i. e. light motor vehicle (commercial) for the period from 29. 10. 2003 to 28. 10. 2006. The licence has been issued by the Licensing Authority of Etawah region in Form 6 prescribed under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It authorises the licence holder to drive a vehicle of the type mentioned in the driving licence throughout the territory of India. But, there is a specific provision under Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, which provides specific endorsement for driving public service vehicle in hill roads. The plea taken by the learned Counsel for the complainant on this point is that the licence holder was not debarred from driving the vehicle in hill routes because he was authorised to drive the vehicle throughout the territory of India. He has cited an example by submitting a photocopy of the driving licence of another person "ram Shankar" (Paper No. 56), wherein it is mentioned in the format of Form 6 that, "the holder of this licence is licensed to drive throughout India except hill route vehicles of the following description". Learned Counsel''s plea is that since there is no such exception clause in the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question, he was authorised to drive the vehicle in hill routes as well. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant is not tenable because Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, specifically provides for endorsement for authorisation to drive a public service vehicle in hill roads. If the exception clause, as quoted above, is missing in the format of Form 6, it cannot be concluded that the licence holder is also authorised to drive the vehicle in hill roads also. Moreover, the format of Form 6, in which a driving licence has been issued to "ram Shankar" is different from the format as prescribed under Rule 16 (1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The prescribed format has the following lines: "the holder of this licence is licensed to drive throughout India vehicles of the following descriptions. "

THE above mentioned format does not contain any exception clause for hill routes. However, when the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 came into force and are applicable in the State of Uttarakhand on and after 9. 11. 2000, the date of the State''s creation, an endorsement for driving the vehicle on the hill roads was necessary and in the absence of such an endorsement, the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Thus, the appellant-insurer has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. We agree with the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum has failed to consider this legal aspect of the case and has not given any finding on Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. As such, the impugned order having legal error, is liable to be set aside. Moreover, it is a well settled law in the light of the judgments cited above and as also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation if he has violated the terms of the policy or statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 27. 9. 2006 of the District Forum is set aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal allowed.