AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1693/08 & 1587/08 of 2012 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. D.A.V. Centenary Public School & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent no.1 was registered owner of mini bus RJ.13.PA.0074 got it insured from OP No.1/petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,56,000/- for a period of one year from 30.03.2005 to 29.3.2006. It was further submitted that OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 requisitioned vehicle from complainant to maintain law and order and when bus was under control of OP No. 2 on 18.7.2005 it collided with truck and bus was damaged for which FIR was lodged and intimation was given to OP No. 1. OP appointed surveyor and claim was submitted to OP No.1, but it was repudiated vide letter dated 30.12.2005. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that surveyor assessed loss of Rs.1,27,224.97, but as driver of mini bus Jagjeet Singh was having licence to drive LMV whereas mini bus was transport vehicle, claim was rightly repudiated on account of violation of terms and conditions of policy. It was further submitted that complainant also submitted that licence issued by DTO, Ferozpur allowing driving LTV and HTV vehicle from 19.7.2004 to 18.7.2004, but as original licence was not produced claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 admitted requisition of bus and accident, but submitted that Respondent No. 2 cannot be termed as consumer and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against OP No. 1 and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.1,27,244.97 along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1100/- as cost of litigation. Complainant as well as OP No. 1 filed appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed both the appeals against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, claim was rightly repudiated, but learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
It is not disputed that complainant''s bus was insured by OP No. 1 and during currency of insurance; bus met with an accident and suffered damages. It is also not disputed that surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,27,224.97.
Now, the core question to be decided is whether driver of vehicle was possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident. Perusal of record reveals that driver Jagjeet Singh was possessing driving licence to drive light motor vehicle other than transport vehicle for a period of 20 years from 2.8.2003 to 1.8.2023. Admittedly, by this licence Jagjeet Singh was not authorized to drive damaged vehicle as it amounted to violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has drawn my attention towards licence issued by DTO, Ferozpur on 19.7.2004 according to which, Jagjeet Singh was authorized to drive LTV and HTV from 19.7.2004 to 18.7.2007. Learned State Commission in paragraph 20 of the impugned order mentioned that original driving licence was seen and in such circumstances, licence issued by competent authority cannot be questioned in absence of any documentary evidence produced by insurance company. Apparently, this licence is not in accordance with law because Section 6 of the M.V. Act provides that no person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner''s licence, meaning thereby, a person cannot hold two licences at a time. Section 6 (3) provides that licensing authority can add classes of vehicle which the driving licence authorizes the holder to drive meaning thereby, Jagjeet Singh could have got added category of other vehicles in his earlier licence dated 2.8.2003, but he was not permitted to obtain another licence from different DTO. Not only this, Section 7 of M.V. Act provides that no person shall be granted a learner''s licence to drive the transport vehicle unless he had a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle for at least one year meaning thereby, for obtaining licence for driving transport vehicle he must have licence to drive light motor vehicle at least for more than a year. In the case in hand, driving licence to drive LMV was issued on 2.8.2003 whereas DTO Ferozpur issued driving licnece on 19.7.2004 to drive LTV and HTV which could not have been issued as Jagjeet Singh was not holding LTV licence for at least one year. In such circumstances, licence dated 19.7.2004 is not in accordance with law and on the basis of this licence it cannot be held that driver was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. Not only this, in licence dated 2.8.2003, date of birth of Jagjeet Singh has been shown as 2.1.1982, whereas in licence dated 19.7.2004 his date of birth has been shown as 2.1.1980. In such circumstances, it is also doubtful that licence dated 19.7.2004 was issued in favour of driver Jagjeet Singh who was driving vehicle at the time of accident.
In the light of aforesaid discussion it becomes clear that at the time of accident driver Jagjeet Singh was not holding valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle.
This Commission in III (2010) CPJ 256 (NC) - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sansar Chand has held that if driver of the vehicle was holding licence for light vehicle and was driving transport vehicle, insurance company cannot be held liable.
In the light of aforesaid judgment it becomes clear that as Jagjeet Singh was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident, OP No. 1 has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1693/08 & 1587/08 of 2012 - United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. D.A.V. Centenary Public School & Anr. and order dated 31.07.2008 passed by District Forum in Complaint no. 272 of 2006 - D.A.V. Centenary Public School & Anr. Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.