UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD vs ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD., TEHRI GARHWAL

THIS appeal is by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Tehri Garhwal against order dated 22.3.94 of District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in Complaint Case No. 127 of 1993. By the impugned order the complainant/respondent has been held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 37,854.74. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 35,884.74 has been awarded as the expenses incurred by the complainant in getting his jeep, which was insured with the appellant and had met with an accident, repaired. The remaining amount of Rs. 1970/- has been awarded as compensation by the District Forum.

WE have heard Mr. V.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent. It is undisputed that the complainant''s jeep was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and during the currency of the Insurance Cover it met with an accident on 19.9.92. The complainant, according to his case, failed to get any amount towards the repairing charges from the Insurance Company inspite of his efforts so that he had to approach the District Forum by filing the complaint. The appellant- Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that on the date of the accident the driver of the jeep did not have a valid licence to drive since it had expired on 16.6.92.

After considering the rival versions of the parties and looking into the evidence brought on the record of the case the District Forum accepted the claim and made an award as aforesaid.

1 HAS been urged before us by Mr. Sharma that admittedly the driving licence of the driver of the jeep had expired on 16.6.92 and came to be renewed only on 17.10.92. As such, on the date of the accident, namely, 19.6.92, the jeep was being driven by a person who did not have a valid licence to drive it. Mr. Sharma HAS empHASized that the fact that the renewal of the licence took place nearly four months after the date of the accident was enough to justify the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company. He HAS placed reliance on three decisions of the National Commission in support of his submission. The first decision was rendered in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Ashok, II (1995) CPJ 208 (NC). In this case the question involved was whether the driver of the motor vehicle in respect whereof the claim was lodged with the Insurance Company on account of the accident in which it was involved and was damaged authorised to drive a transport vehicle. Obviously, the decision in this case HAS no bearing on the question raised in the present appeal. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Yashwant Ghatge, I (1996) CPJ 276 (NC) the vehicle in question was being driven by a person who only had a learner''s driving licence. The National Commission took the view that the person having such a licence was not entitled to claim the insurance amount. The report of the decision shows that even learner''s licence was not got renewed by the driver.

IN New INdia Assurance Company Ltd. v. Jadav Narendrabhai Jethabhai, I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC) the driving licence had expired on November 11,1979 and the application for renewal had been filed after a lapse of nearly 12 years. On these facts the National Commission took the view that the renewed driving licence could be effective only from 21.5.91 when the application for renewal was made. Strong reliance has been placed by Sri Sharma on the decision in Jadav Narendrabhai Jethabhai in support of the plea that the renewal of a licence dates back to the date on which the application for renewal is made. The decision of the National Commission apparently turned on the peculiar facts of that case and does not assist the Insurance Company in the present appeal where it is the admitted position that the renewal of the licence took place within four months of its expiry. It has been urged by Sri Sharma that the application for renewal was made on 17.10.92 on which date the licence was renewed. This fact does not appear to have been brought on the record of the case by either party. What has been urged by Sri Sharma is that it was the obligation of the claimant-respondent to have placed the necessary material, relating to the date on which the application for renewal was made, on the record of the case. We find it difficult to accept this submission in the circumstances of the present case for it is clear that it is the Insurance Company which is setting up the plea that the driving licence of the person who was driving the ill-fated jeep on the date of the accident was not valid on that date. The language of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles'' Act, 1988 makes it clear beyond doubt that if an application for renewal is made the renewal of the driving licence shall be made with effect from the date of its expiry and it is only where the application for renewal is made after more than 30 days of the expiry it shall be renewed from the date of its renewal. The question, therefore, is whether the application for renewal of the licence was made within thirty days of its expiry or not. If the application for renewal was made beyond 30 days the date of renewal would be different from the date of expiry and it is this fact pleaded, as an exception to the claim made by the respondent, by the Insurance Company which it had to establish on the record of the proceedings before the District Forum. The liability of the Insurance Company to compensate for the damages under the terms of the insurance policy is clear because its liability subsists in a case where the person driving the vehicle holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence. This condition has been reproduced in paragraph 12 of the memo of appeal by the appellant in this case. Construing this term of the insurance policy in our decision in Mohd. Shakeel Siddiqui v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., III (1995) CPJ 165 we have held that where it has been established that the person who had held a licence and had not been disqualified to hold it he would be entitled to drive a motor vehicle and if such a person was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident, the Insurance Company could not escape its liability in the matter.

IN view of the aforesaid we are of the opinion that the decision recorded by the District Forum does not merit any interference. We dismiss the appeal but having regard to the circumstances discussed above we leave the parties to bear their own costs in it. A copy of this order shall be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties within three weeks as per Rules. Appeal dismissed.