Search in selected Domain

Print this page MANU/CF/0022/2004

II(2004)CPJ57(NC)

|| Email this page

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI First Appeal No. 236 of 2000 Decided On: 16.02.2004 Appellants: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Manohar Lal Batra Hon'ble Judges: K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member) and Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Yogesh Malhotra, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Ashwani Garg, Adv. Subject: Consumer Subject: Motor Vehicles Acts/Rules/Orders: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 15(1) Cases Referred: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadav Narender Bhai Jeta Bhai, I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC), 1986-1996 (Part II) Consumer 1873 (NS); Raj Kumar and Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., I (1996) CPJ 241 (NC); New India Assurance Company Ltd., Shimla v. Kamala and Ors., III (2001) SLT 150, I (2002) ACC 346, (2001) 4 SCC 342; Jitender Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2003) SLT 497, (2003) 6 SCC 420 Disposition: Appeal allowed

ORDER K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.6.2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby appellant/opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 2.12.1996 to the respondent/complainant. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in narrow compass. Respondent had purchased a comprehensive insurance policy in respect of bus No. DL IP 1025 in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the appellant Insurance Company. Policy was valid from 24.11.1994 to 23.11.1995. Bus met with an accident on 2.3.1995 near Beawar and the appellant was informed about the accident on 6.3.1995. Appellant deputed Virendra Kumar Bahl, Surveyor to assess the loss and he submitted the report dated 31.3.1995. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, another Surveyor was deputed by the appellant to carry out final survey and assess the loss and he submitted the report dated 20.8.1995. Respondent had submitted bills for Rs. 5,34,000/- being estimate for the repairs of damaged bus. Claim for amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was alleged to have been cleared by the appellant. When the respondent acceded to accept this amount, the appellant offered payment of only Rs. 1,60,000/-. Ultimately, by the letter dated 2.12.1996, the appellant repudiated the claim made by respondent on the ground that driver of the bus was not possessing a valid licence on the date the accident took place. Thereafter, complaint filed by the respondent was contested by the appellant on identical ground that driving licence was not effective at the time of accident. However, repelling that plea, the State Commission allowed the complaint with the direction noted above. 3. Main submission advanced by Mr. Yogesh Malhotra for appellant was that at the time of accident the bus was being driven by Gajanan and though he was issued driving licence on 23.10.1986 but the same was renewed on 7.4.1995 upto 6.4.1998. Since renewal was made after 35 days of the accident, the licence would be deemed to have been renewed from the date of renewal under Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was pointed out that State Commission had misquoted the wordings of the relevant clause of policy in the impugned order. An attested copy of the policy in question was also placed on the file. Copy of driving licence (at pp-58-59) would show that though the licence was issued on 23.8.1986 but it was renewed on 7.4.1995 upto 6.4.1998. Impugned order notices the relevant clause of policy thus--

'provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence.' 4. Considering this clause, State Commission was of the opinion that even if the person driving the vehicle had held a driving licence and had not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence, he will be deemed to be having a valid licence; appellant had failed to show that the driver of vehicle was ever disqualified from holding driving licence. Decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadav Narender Bhai Jeta Bhai, I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC)-1986-1996 (Part II) Consumer 1873 (NS) relied on behalf of appellant was distinguished on the ground that driving licence in that case was renewed nearly after 12 years of its expiry. In the attested copy of policy in question, the relevant clause reads as under : 'Persons or class of persons entitled to drive--Any person including insured provided that a person driving held an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. 5. It may be seen that the words 'or had held' as quoted by State Commission do not occur in the policy in question. Plain reading of said clause would show that risk under the policy will not be covered in the event of the person driving the vehicle not holding a valid/ effective licence at the time of accident, This conclusion reached by us is supported by Jadav Narender Bhai Jeta Bhai's case (supra) wherein it was held that where application for renewal of licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed w.e.f. the date of such renewal. Impugned order, thus, cannot be legally sustained. Decisions in Raj Kumar and Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., I (1996) CPJ 241 (NC); New India Assurance Company Ltd., Shimla v. Kamala and Ors., III (2001) SLT 150=I (2002) ACC 346=(2001) 4 SCC 342; Jitender Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2003) SLT 497=(2003) 6 SCC 420 were rendered on the facts of those cases and have no applicability to the facts of present case. 6. For the foregoing discussion, appeal is allowed, order dated 29.6.2000 is set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost. 7. Deposited amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- will be refunded to the appellant. Print this page || Email this page manupatra.com Pvt. Ltd.