AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission ") in Appeal No. 132/2010, vide which the State Commission allowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid on account of insurance claim to the complainants/respondents and thus modified the order dated 04.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, according to which Rs. 1,65,000/- had been allowed to be given along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.10.2008 till realization to the complainants.
BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased-Mohan Lal purchased a tractor by raising loan and executed a hire-purchase agreement with the financer. The said tractor was registered as a Light Commercial Vehicle/Tractor/Trolley as per registration certificate and it was insured with the petitioner/opposite party for a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- for the period from 20.10.2006 to 19.10.2007. The policy also covered the risk of the death of the insured in an accident of the insured vehicle. On 07.10.2007, when the tractor was being used to plough the fields, it met with an accident, as a result of which, it fell into a well in the fields and the insured died after the accident. A report was lodged with the Police and also intimation about the accident was given to the petitioner/opposite party. The petitioner repudiated the claim for the death of insured on the ground that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle, but the licence possessed by the deceased was for Light Motor Vehicle and hence it was not a valid and effective licence. Moreover, the fitness of the vehicle had not been certified beyond 11.01.2006 and hence, the complainants who were legal heirs of the deceased, were not liable to be indemnified. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, directed to pay Rs. 1,65,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, besides a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainants. An appeal against this order was made before the State Commission, and vide impugned order the State Commission modified the order saying that Rs. 2,00,000/- will be given to the complainants because the amount payable on account of accidental death under the policy was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The State Commission held that when the accident took place, the tractor was being used for ploughing the fields and hence it was not used for commercial purpose. The deceased driver was having licence for LMV, which was a valid licence for driving the tractor. The State Commission also held that non-transport vehicles do not require any fitness or certification for first fifteen years and in the present case, the tractor did not require any fitness certification before the year 2020.
AT the time of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that at the time of accident, the deceased driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle and had been registered as such and hence the person driving the vehicle was supposed to get an endorsement made on the licence from the appropriate authority for driving a commercial vehicle. The learned counsel in support of his arguments, has drawn our attention to the judgement passed by the Hon ''ble Supreme Court of India as reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 SC in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai and Ors., in which it has been held that the Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of claim if the driver was not possessing a valid licence. He has also drawn our attention to the ruling given by the Hon ''ble Apex Court in New India Insurance Co. Versus Prabhu Lal reported in (2008) I Supreme Court Cases 696, in support of his contention, that if there was no endorsement on the licence, authorizing a person to drive a transport vehicle, he was not entitled to claim any compensation from the insurer.
WE have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The facts of the case make it very clear that at the time of the accident, the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes only. It cannot be stated by any stretch of imagination that the tractor was being used for a commercial purpose. The deceased driver had valid driving licence at the time of accident, which was valid for LMV. Moreover, it is a matter of fact that tractor is a vehicle, primarily meant for agricultural operations and hence it is an LMV. Only when a trolley is attached to the tractor and it acquires special permission for being used for commercial purposes, it can be termed as a transport / commercial vehicle. In general practice, however, a tractor is meant to perform agricultural operations only. Further, the Government of India in the Ministry of Surface Transport issued S.O. No. 1248 (E) dated 05.11.2004 under Section 41 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (published in the Gazette of India Extra, Pt. II Sec. 3(II) dated 05.11.2004], in which the types of motor vehicles have been mentioned and classified as Transport/Non-Transport vehicles in the table published under the said standing order. In the said table, the agricultural tractor and Power Tillers have been categorised as ''Non-Transport Vehicle ''. However, ''Power Tiller and tractors using pubic roads '' have been categorised as ''Transport Vehicles ". In the instant case, when the tractor was being used in the agricultural fields at the time of accident, it can only be categorized as ''Non-Transport Vehicle. '' The State Commission vide impugned order has modified the award given by the District Forum from Rs.1.65 lakh to Rs.2 lakh saying that the accidental death benefit in terms of the Insurance Policy was Rs.2 lakh. However, this contention has not been substantiated by any document on record. A perusal of the insurance policy in question also does not indicate anywhere that the sum assured is Rs.2 lakh in case of death by accident. In para 2 of the consumer complaint, it has been mentioned that Mohanlal being the owner of the said tractor was also insured under Personal Accident claim amounting to Rs.2 lakh. In their written statement, the petitioner/OP have stated that para 2 of the complaint is a matter of record. It is clear from record, therefore, that the figure of Rs.2 lakh has not been mentioned anywhere and hence, the order passed by the District Forum awarding a sum of Rs.1.65 lakh seems to be correct. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, needs to be modified and a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- is awarded in place of Rs.2 lakh.
FURTHER , we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that there was no need to certify the fitness of this vehicle before a period of fifteen years i.e. before the year 2020 if it was being used as ''tractor '' only.
IN the light of the discussion above, the order passed by the State Commission is modified and amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the State Commission is reduced to Rs.1,65,000/-. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.