AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2002 passed in case No. 323/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short the "District Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not making the payment of the own damage claim of the Ambulance bearing registration No. M.P. 04-K 3625 comprehensively insured met with an accident on 25.3.2001 was allowed with an order to pay the amount of Rs. 25,245/- as assessed by the Surveyor with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 23.5.2001 and Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings.
LEARNED Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the Ambulance is a transport vehicle registered as LGV by the RTO Bhopal which did not have certificate of fitness as required by Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver driving the vehicle at the time of accident was holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, which did not have an endorsement authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle as mandated by Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence, the repudiation of the claim was on justifiable grounds. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent could not produce the fitness certificate, but, the driver did possess a licence to drive light motor vehicle at the time of accident. The Ambulance is light motor vehicle and is not a transport vehicle, hence, the certificate of fitness or authorisation to drive transport vehicle was not necessary.
After hearing learned Counsels for the parties, in our opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that ambulance is not a transport vehicle which does not require endorsement authorising the driver to drive transport vehicle cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 356/2001, decided on 8.8.2001, Sandeep v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein this Commission considered the question and held that the ambulance is a transport vehicle and the driving licence of a driver driving such vehicle required an endorsement authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle. However, the Insurance Company was ordered to pay the amount of own damage claim as a non-standard claim, observing in paras 3 to 6 thus : "3. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ''M.V. Act'') and in supersession of the notification No. S.O. 436(E), dated the 12th June, 1989 except or respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government specified the types of Motor Vehicles mentioned in Column (2) of the Table below as the types in respect of motor vehicles specified in the corresponding entry in Column (1) thereof for the purpose of Sub-section (4), the relevant of which we quote : The Table Transport vehicles Non-transport vehicles (1) (2) (i) Motor Cycle with side car for carrying goods. (i) Motor Cycle with or without car for personal use. (ii) Motor Cycle with trailer to carry goods. (ii) Motor Cycle with trailer to carry personal effects. (iii) Motor Cycle use for hire to carry one passenger on pillion and motorized Cycle-rickshaw for goods/passengers on hire (iii) Mopeds and motorized. cycles (engine capacity exceeding 35cc). (1) (2) (iv) Motor cab and luxury Cabs. (iv) Invalid carriage. (v) Goods carrier trucks /tankers/mail carriers. (v) Three wheeled vehicles for personal use. (vi) Trailers (vi) Motor car. (vii) Maxi-cab (vii) Fork Lift (viii) Stage carriers. (viii) Vehicles/trailers fitted with equipments like rig. Generator, compressor. (ix) Contract carriages and Tourist vehicles. (ix) Crane mounted vehicle. (x) Three wheeled vehicles for transport of passenger/goods. (x) Tractor. (xi) Mobile clinic/X-ray van library vans. (xi) Trailers to carry personal effects. (xii) Private service vehicle. (xii) Tower wagons and three trimming vehicles. (xiii) Educational institution buses (xiii) Two trucks breakdown Van (recovery vehicles). (xiv) Ambulances. (xiv) Omnibus for private use. (xv) Mobile canteens (xv) Camper Van/Trailer for private use. (xvi) Cash vans. (xvii) Articulated vehicles. (xviii) Camper Vans/Trailer. (xix) Animal ambulanees. (xx) Hearses. (xxi) Mobile workshops. (xxii) Fire tenders, snorked ladders, auxillary trailers and fire fighting vehicles. (xxii) Omnibus. (xxiv) Dumper/excavator.
(a) "Ambulance" means vehicle specially designed, constructed or modified and equipped and intended to be used for emergency transportation of persons who are sick, injured, wounded or otherwise incapacitated.
(b) "Animal ambulance" means intended to be used for the emergency transportation of sick, injured, wounded or otherwise incapacitated animals.
(c) "Campers'' Van" means a motor vehicle designed or constructed to provide living quarters or constructed to provide living quarters for recreational camping or travel use with direct walk through access to the living quarters from the driver''s seat.
(d) "Camping Trailer" means a trailer not used for transport of goods, constructed with partial side walls which folds for towing and unfolds to provide temporary living accommodation for recreational camping and tourist purposes.
In view of the above, it cannot be contended that the Ambulance was not a transport vehicle.
ADMITTEDLY, the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was holding driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle without any endorsement authorising him to drive the transport vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) of the M.V. Act, therefore, the Insurance Company in our opinion rightly of the view that the driver was not holding a valid licence. However, in the facts of this case, the Insurance Company is also to be blamed for issuing a policy of insurance for private use than a commercial policy which certainly gave an impression that a driver without authorisation of transport vehicle holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive the vehicle. Therefore, we are of the view that the Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim as non-standard claim according to the guidelines issued for settlement of non-standard claims which we reproduce from the decision rendered by the National Commission in case of Kesarben v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2000) CPJ 36 (NC), from which we quote para 3 thus : 3. The types of claims which can be settled as non-standard under the guidelines are set out hereunder : Non-Standard claims Following types of claims shall be considered as non-standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons : Sr. No. Description Percentage of settlement (i) Under declaration of licensed carrying; capacity. Deduct 3 years difference in premium from the amount of claim or deduce 25% ofclaim amount whichever is higher. (ii) Overloading of vehicles notbeyond Licensed of carrying capacity. Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim. (iii) Any other breach of ofWarranty/condition policy including limitation as to use. Pay upto 75% of admissible claim. For breach of warranty/conditions which do not involve any saying in premiums or any additional exposure to the insurers such claims be considered as Standard Claiming, e.g. Route Permit."
In view of the above, treating the claim as a non-standard claim after deduction of salvage value of Rs. 1,000/- the payable amount as assessed by the Surveyor comes to Rs. 24,245/-. In this 25 percent is deducted, the amount would come to Rs. 18,186.75 paise, which shall be paid by the Insurance Company with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. from 28.5.2001 along with Rs. 500/- as costs of the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case.
Appeal partly allowed.