9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be appropriate if we narrate the facts in the first case i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal. 4. A complaint was filed by the complainant Prabhu Lal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota (Rajasthan) ('District Forum' for short) claiming compensation from the respondent Insurance Company as also from Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur. The case of the complainant was that he purchased a vehicle-Tata 709 with Registration No. RJ-20G-2828 from Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur. The insurance was taken from New India Assurance Company effective from October 17, 1997 to October 16, 1998. Premium amount of Rs. 8235/- was duly paid. It was the case of the complainant that on April 17, 1998, the vehicle of the complainant was being driven by Mohd. Julfikar to Indore for getting Chilly. At about 4.30 a.m. in the early morning, the driver of Roadways Bus No. MP 13-C-3935 drove the bus with very high speed in rash and negligent manner which resulted in an accident at Yashwant Nagar. Due to said accident, Ram Narain-brother of the complainant who was sitting with Mohd. Julfikar, sustained injuries. Mohd. Ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant, Insurance Company wrongly presumed and proceeded on the basis that the vehicle was driven by Ram Narain at the time of accident, who was having a valid driving licence to drive only Light Motor Vehicle and negatived the claim. It was, therefore, prayed that an award be passed in favour of the complainant. 7. The case of the Insurance Company, on the other hand, was that the vehicle in question, at the time of accident, was driven by Ram Narain, brother of the complainant. Admittedly, Ram Narain was possessing licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and not Heavy Motor Vehicle. He, therefore, could not have driven Transport Vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement as required and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. In this connection, Insurance Company relied on the permit issued by Transport Authority, the Form submitted by the complainant, licence issued and other documents. The Insurance Company also relied upon FIR filed at Police Station, Manpur, wherein it was stated that the vehicle was driven by Ram Narain. Moreover, when the officers of the Insurance Company approached the complainant, they were informed by the complainant that the vehicle was dri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the State Commission, the District Forum was not right in dismissing the claim observing that the said decision was against the complainant. In fact, the point was decided in favour of the complainant and the complainant-claimant would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment and the Insurance Company must be held liable. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the Insurance Company was ordered to pay the amount mentioned in the operative part of the judgment along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. 11. Aggrieved Insurance Company approached National Forum against the order passed by the State Commission but the National Commission also dismissed the Revision and confirmed the order passed by the State Commission. It is this order which is challenged in this Court. 12. On April 23, 2004, notice was issued by the Court. It appears that meanwhile in other matters, a similar question came up before this Court and hence all the matters were ordered to be placed for hearing together. 13. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 14. The learned Counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have plied the vehicle in question, a finding was recorded in favour of the Insurance Company by the District Forum which had not been disturbed by the State Commission or by the National Commission and hence the complaint ought to have been dismissed. 15. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it was the case of the complainant before District Forum that the vehicle was driven by Mohd. Julfikar who possessed valid licence to ply the vehicle but as soon as the accidence took place, he fled away since he was scared that passengers in the bus might not spare him and he might be beaten. As Ram Narain sustained several injuries, he could not go away. Unfortunately, the District Forum dismissed the complaint which necessitated challenging the decision and the complainant succeeded before the State Forum and National Forum. As to Ashok Gangadhar, the counsel submitted that the said decision helps the complainant and both the Commissions were right in following it and in directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the complainant. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. Before we deal with contentions raised by the parties on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (emphasis supplied) 18. Section 5 declares that no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person which does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 to drive the vehicle. Section 10 deals with form and contents of licences. It enacts that every driving licence (except a driving licence issued under Section 18 which provides for driving motor vehicles belonged to the Central Government) shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. It also states that a driving licence shall be expressed as entitling the driver to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the types of motor vehicles specified in Sub-section (2). Section 15 provides for 'renewal of driving licences'. Section 27 empowers the Central Government to make rules in respect of matters enumerated therein. Section 66 prohibits an owner of motor vehicle to use or to permit the use of motor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, the State Commission relied upon Ashok Gangadhar. 24. In our considered view, the State Commission was wrong in reversing the finding recorded by the District Forum. So far as Ashok Gangadhar is concerned, we will deal with the said decision little later but from the documentary evidence on record and particularly, from the permit issued by the Transport Authority, it is amply clear that the vehicle was a 'goods carrier' [Section 2(14) ]. If it is so, obviously, it was a 'transport vehicle' falling under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. The District Forum was, therefore, right in considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company on the basis that Tata 709 which met with an accident was 'transport vehicle'. 25. The second question is as to who was driving the vehicle which collided with M.P. Roadways Bus on April 17, 1998. In this connection, it may be stated that it was the case of the complainant that the vehicle (Tata 709) was driven by Mohd. Julfikar to Indore. Because of rash and negligent driving by Kalu, driver of other vehicle i.e. M.P. Roadways bus, there was an accident and Ram Narain, brother of the complainant, sustained seri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is 'Light Motor Vehicle', but falls under the category of Transport Vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and Insurance Company could not be held liable. 29. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act to be a transport vehicle. It was, therefore, held that the Commission was not right in rejecting the claim of the claimant. Accordingly this Court set aside the order passed by the Commission and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the complainant. 31. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar, in spite of the fact that the driver was holding valid driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), this Court upheld the claim and ordered the Insurance Company to pay compensation. But, in our considered opinion, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company is right in submitting that it was because of the fact that there was neither pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by the Transport Authority. In absence of pleading and proof, this Court held that, it could not be said that the driver had no valid licence to ply the vehicle which met with an accident and he could not be deprived of the compensation. This is clear if one reads paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads thus: 11. To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal". It is thus clear that if a licence is issued or renewed in respect of a transport vehicle, it can be done only for a period of three years. But, in case of any other vehicle, such issuance or renewal can be for twenty years provided the person in whose favour licence issued or renewed had not attained the age of 50 years. In the present case, the licence was renewed on November 17, 1995 upto November 16, 2015 i.e. for a period of twenty years. From this fact also, it is clear that the licence was in respect of 'a motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle'. 35. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company also referred to a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company v. Kusum Rai and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3440, wherein this Court held that if the vehicle is a taxi which is being driven by a driver holding licence for driving Light Motor Vehicle only without there being any endorsement for driving transport vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be ordered to pay compensation. 36. We may also refer to a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Sura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to promote the business of the insurers engaged in the business of automobile insurance. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the members of the Community travelling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicles on the roads. The law may provide for compensation to victims of the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident or compensation to the dependents of the victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the compensation awarded by the Courts would be recoverable from the persons held liable for the consequences of the accident. A Court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person held liable who may not have the resources. The exercise undertaken by the law Courts would then be an exercise in futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings which by the very nature of things involve the time cost and money cost invested from the scarce resources of the Community would make a mockery of the injured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibuted to the causing of the accident. The Court held that exclusionary permission in the insurance policy must be retained so as to serve the main purpose of the policy which was to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle. 40. In Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 4161, the Court held that if the vehicle was damaged due to accidental fire, the fact that the driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of incident would not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim and it could not be put forward as a ground to deny the liability of the Insurance Company that the driver did not have valid licence at the time of accident in question. 41. Finally, a reference was made to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1531. That case also related to third party victims of motor vehicle accidents and to us the ratio in Swaran Singh does not carry the case of the claimant further. 42. For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum cannot be said to be faulty and it was right in holding that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company, the complaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
