National Insurance Company Ltd vs M.S. Bhati

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Bench No.2, Camp Kota (in short 'the State Commission') in F.A. No. 12/2013.

The brief facts of the case are that Respondent/complainant insured a vehicle bearing No. RJ 17TA 0010 on 18.4.2007 for a sum of Rs.2,70,084/-. On 11.4.2008 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident at 2.10 p.m. Driver Wasim Nawaz died in the accident on the spot. Eight persons died and three got injured in the accident. Wasim Nawaz had a driving licence valid from 17.1.2005 till 16.1.2008. FIR No.35/08 dated 11.4.2008 of the accident was lodged in P.S. Rampur, Distt. Jhalawar which shows the time of accident at 2.10 p.m. The driving licence of Wasim Nawaz was renewed vide receipt dated 11.4.2008 at 2.42 p.m. meaning thereby it was renewed after the accident had already occurred. Motor Spot survey report is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Bhargava on 10.6.2008. Motor Final Survey report dated 28.6.2008 was submitted by Mr. Amir Kumar Srivastava. An Investigation Report dated 23.10.2008 was filed by Shri Vikas Chaturvedi who submitted that driver died on 11.4.2008 at 2.10. p.m. and renewal fee of his licence was deposited at the office of District Transport Officer, Jhalawar after his death on 11.4.2008 at 2.42 pm. Hence the process of renewal of licence was conducted after the death of Wasim Nawaz. On 22.5.2009 the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint no.16 of 2009 alleging deficiency of service and prayed for an award of an amount of Rs.2,78,887/- towards insurance cover, Rs.50,000/- towards physical and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs. Petitioner/OP filed reply. The District Forum vide order dated 15.2.2013 dismissed the complaint by observing that the driver did not have any valid licence at the time of accident. The respondent/complainant filed First Appeal No.12 of 2013 before the State Commission. Vide order dated 15.2.2016 the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent by holding that driver Wasim Nawaz had valid driving licence upto 10.4.2008 and he had time to renew it when his licence expired on 10.4.2008 which was renewed on the next day. The State Commission directed the petitioner to pay compensation calculated by the surveyor from the date of submitting the complaint with 9% p.a. interest within one month alongwith Rs.11,000/- towards cost of appeal and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony.

Hence, the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner insurance company stated that at the time of accident the driver was not having a valid driving licence, however, the driving licence was renewed on the date of accident itself. the accident had occurred on 11.4.2008 at 2.10 p.m. whereas the renewal of the licence has been done at 2.42 p.m. on the same day, when the driver had already died in the accident on the spot. The learned counsel further stated that his earlier licence was valid from 17.1.2005 to 16.1.2008. Thus, the driver was not having driving licence from 17.1.2008 to 11.4 2008 till 2.10 p.m. when the accident took place. The District Forum had rightly dismissed the claim of the complainant. However, the State Commission has allowed the claim by observing the following:

"A copy of driving licence of driver Wasim Nawaz of complainant is produced which is valid from date 11.4.2008 to 10.04.2011. Question is that the accident occurred on date 11.04.2008 and the licence was renewed on the same day after the accident. This fact does not come in the file that the licence of driver Wasim Nawaz was valid till which date. That according to the provisions of section 15 of Motor Vehicle Act that if the driver applies for the renewal within 30 days from the end of licence period, his licence will be considered effective from the termination date of licence. We would like to accept this condition that the driver Wasim Nawaz had valid llicence upto 10.04.2008. He had time to renew it, when his licence was expired on 10.04.2008, which was renewed on the next day. This presumption seems appropriate. Insurance company failed to produce any other fact. There is no possibility that the driver himself went to renew his licence, after the accident. The accident took place at 2.10 pm at Rampur Police Station but the licence of the driver was renewel 2.42 p.m. at Jhalawar, whether it is possible that the licence of the driver was renewed 32 minutes after the accident whereas the driver was died in that accident. It seems that driver had already applied for the renewal of his licence. It is impossible to renew the licence from Rampur to Jhalawar in just 32 minutes. In this circumstances, the insurance company did not had any justifiable ground to repudiate the insurance claim. The learned District Forum has committed a rare legal mistake by rejecting the complaint of the complainant. The decision of learned District Forum dated 5.2.2013 is liable to be cancelled and appeal of the appellant is liable to be accepted."

It was argued by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the observation of the State Commission is not legally tenable because even if 30 days period is counted from the date of 17.1.2008, definitely the licence was not renewed within the period prescribed under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Thus, the State Commission has wrongly presumed that the driver had applied within the time prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Clearly, there has been violation of the conditions of the policy as the driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the claim was rightly repudiated and claim cannot be allowed.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the earlier licence of the driver which is alleged to be valid from 17.1.2005 till 16.1.2008 was not there before the State Commission as the State Commission has clearly noted this fact in its order. Therefore, the State Commission has rightly presumed that the renewal of the driving licence was done within the time given under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. No fresh evidence can be considered at the stage of the revision petition.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the record. First of all, it is seen that the earlier driving licence of the driver was not available before the State Commission and therefore the State Commission presumed under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 that the earlier driving licence was valid upto 10.4.2008. Now the earlier driving licence is available on record which was valid till only 16.1.2008. It is true that the fresh evidence is generally not accepted at the revisional stage, however, a court or forum can accept any additional document/evidence at any stage if it helps in deciding a particular issue. Accordingly, this driving licence is taken on record in the interest of justice. Clearly, the validity of earlier licence of the driver was for the period 17.1.2005 to 16.1.2008. This driving licence was renewed on 11.4.2008 at 2.42 p.m. During the period form 17.1.2008 till 11.4.2008 till 2.42 p.m. there was no driving licence with the driver. The State Commission has presumed that the renewal of the driving licence must have been applied within 30 days from the expiry of the earlier driving licence and therefore, the claim has been allowed on the basis of Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which reads as under:

"15. Renewal of driving licences. -

(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence.

From the above, it is clear that if an application is moved within 30 days from the expiry of the earlier licence, the licence shall be renewed in continuity of the expiry date of the previous licence. However, if the application is moved beyond 30 days of the expiry of the licence, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the actual date on which the renewal takes place. In the present case, the driving licence has been renewed from 11.4.2008 at 2.42 p.m. Therefore, it clearly means that the application must have been moved after 30 days from the date of expiry of the earlier licence. The presumption of the State Commission does not hold good as the driving licence has not been renewed from the expiry of the earlier licence. Thus, it is quite clear that the presumption made by the State Commission in respect of the driving licence of the driver was not correct and the driver was not holding any valid driving licence at the time of accident which is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Based on the above, I find merit in the revision petition and the same is allowed. The order dated 15.2.2016 of the State Commission is set aside and the order dated 15.2.2013 passed by the District Forum is confirmed.