Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member
1) Appellant Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22/09/2014, passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal, in consumer complaint CC/37/2012, whereby the Consumer complaint filed by the respondent came to be allowed. (The appellant and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature).
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under. :-
3) Complainant Premchand Murab claims to be resident of Yavatmal and he purchased one tractor as well as trolley for agricultural operation. Complainant has contended that he has also insured the tractor as well as trolley with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd /O.P. Complainant has paid the premium for the insurance and the period of insurance was from 17/01/2011 to 16/01/2012. Complainant has further alleged that one efficient driver namely Bharat Lilhare was appointed to work on the tractor and trolley. He has was also having experience of three years and on 23/02/2011 the driver of the complainant was driving the tractor and was passing through the village Dattapur when suddenly there was failure of brakes and accident took place where in the tractor and trolley both were damaged. Complainant has contended that he has sustained loss of Rs.1,08,886/- to the tractor and Rs.10,000/- to the trolley. Complainant has alleged that since he had sustained monetory loss of huge amount of Rs.1.08.886/- he approached the O.P./ Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd and submitted the proposal for the claim towards damage, but the O.P. namely Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd rejected and repudiated the claim by sending letter dated 18/11/2021. Complainant has contended that he was a Consumer and the O.P. namely Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd has indulged in deficiency in service and so the present complaint.
4) O.P. has appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on record. O.P. has admitted that the complainant had taken insurance policy from the company. O.P. has also admitted that the complainant had given intimation regarding accident of tractor and trolley on 23/02/2011 and thereafter one proposal was also sent. However, O.P. has taken a plea that the claim forwarded by the complainant was submitted to the surveyor and surveyor has given report that the driver who was driving the tractor as well as trolley was not having a valid driving licence for driving the transport vehicle and was having driving licence of non transport vehicle. Surveyor also given report that the claimant /consumer was entitled for damages to the extent of Rs.39,786/-. On the basis of report submitted by the Surveyor insurance company repudiated the claim of the complaint.
5) After filing of the complaint notice was issued to O.P. and O.P. has appeared and resisted the compliant by filing written version on record. Learned District Consumer Commission, Nagpur thereafter went through the complaint as well as evidence and documents filed on record. Learned District Consumer Commission also went through the written version, evidence affidavit and documents filed by O.P. Learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur also went through the written notes of arguments filed by both parties. After appreciating the documents and evidence adduced on record and written notes of arguments the learned District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal allowed the complaint by passing order dated 22/09/2014. Against the said order dated 22/09/2014 present appeal is filed.
6) Prior to dealing with the contentions raised by the learned advocate for both the parties it would be necessary to deal with certain undisputed facts. There is no dispute that the complainant/Premchand Murab has purchased the tractor and trolley and the same was duly insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd /O.P. and period of insurance was from 17/01/2011 to 16/01/2012. There is also no dispute that when the driver was driving the tractor and was proceeding to Kalamb on 23/02/2011 the tractor met with an accident as there was failure of brake. There is also no serious dispute that in the said accident tractor and trolley were badly damaged and so the complainant had submitted claim to the insurance company.
7) Mr.Verma learned advocate for the appellant has challenged the judgment/order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal dated 22/09/2014 on various grounds and we would like to deal with them one by one. At the out set learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal has not at all properly considered the defence raised by the appellant in his written statements and has also not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in a proper prospective and therefore has reached conclusions which were erroneous in nature.
8) On the other hand advocate Mr.Tushar Mandlekar appearing for respondent has supported the findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal and has submitted that there is no infirmity or errors in the findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal
9) Mr.Verma learned advocate for the appellant has taken specific plea that the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal had not at all taken in to consideration that the insurance claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the complainant was not holding valid and effective driving licence for transport vehicle. According to the learned advocate for the appellant the driver who was driving the tractor and trolley at the time of accident on 23/02/2011 was holding the driving licence for driving only light motor vehicle (non transport) and was not holding valid licence for driving the transport vehicle and so there was clear breach of insurance policy. According to the learned advocate for appellant the tractor owned by the complainant was attached with the trolley at the relevant time and therefore was a transport vehicle and so it was necessary for the driver to have an effective licence for plying the transport vehicle. Learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted before us that this fact was brought to the notice of the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal, but the same was not properly considered and the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal had erroneously given the findings that the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence.
10) According to Mr.Verma learned advocate for the appellant whenever the driving licence is issued to the driver in respect of light motor vehicle (tractor) an endorsement is made that the same is valid for transport vehicle. Secondly it is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that the O.P. had also drawn the attention of the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal to the report of the surveyor where in the surveyor had given the report that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in as much as the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence for driving the transport vehicle. During the course of arguments the learned advocate for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the various documents on record including the copy of insurance policy as well as the report of surveyor and other documents and we have gone through the same. Learned advocate for the appellant has also drawn our attention to the copy of the report (FIR) lodged with Kalamb Police Station on 26/02/2011 regarding accident and the same shows that on the basis of the report dated 26/02/2011 crime number 25/11 had also come to be registered. Mr.Tushar Mandlekar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/complainant has strongly rebutted this contention and has submitted that arguments and submissions made on behalf of the appellant were devoid of any substance and there was no breach of insurance policy on the ground that driver was not holding the valid and effective driving licence for transport vehicle. Mr.Tushar Mandlekar, learned advocate for the respondent has conceded the fact that at the relevant time tractor of the complainant was attached with the trolley and therefore was the commercial vehicle. However Mr.Tushar Mandlekar, learned advocate for respondent has submitted that there was absolutely no necessity to have a separate endorsement on the driving licence that the driver can drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class if the gross vehicle weight of transport vehicle does not exceed to 7500 kg. In order to buttress this contention Mr.Tushar Mandlekar, learned advocate for respondent has drawn our attention to one circular dated 16/04/2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway and addressed to all the Principal Secretaries (transport). We have carefully gone through this circular/letter dated 16/04/2018. If we go through this circular/letter it clearly speaks that the circular was issued is consequence of one judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5826/2011, Mukund Dewangan…..V/s…… Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Further the said circular/letter clearly mentioned in para No.2 that transport vehicle the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle. Further the circular also speaks in para No.2-b that no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class and the licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 94 and 28/03/2001 in the form. In this connection Mr.Tushar Mandlekar learned advocate for the respondent has also drawn our attention to copy of judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan…..V/s…… Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd (cited supra) copy of which is also placed on record. From the circular referred earlier dated 16/04/2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, it is crystal clear that transport vehicle whose (un laden weight) does not exceed 7500 kg. comes within the definition of light motor vehicle and so no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive the transport vehicle. If we go through the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal, the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal has clearly given the findings that the light motor vehicle includes the transport vehicle and the driver was having valid and effective driving licence and we do not find any error in the said findings. We therefore do find considerable force in the contentions advanced by Mr.Tushar Mandlekar, learned advocate for respondent that no separate endorsement was necessary and the driver of the tractor was holding valid and effective driving licence.
11) Secondly, Mr.Verma, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal had also not properly considered the report of the surveyor who had estimated damages to the tune of Rs.39,786/- and has wrongly awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.1,08,886/-. We have therefore also gone through the report of Surveyor, copy of which is placed on record. No doubt after the accident and after the insurance claim was submitted by the complainant, Surveyor had come to be appointed and he had inspected the tractor and trolley and had assessed the damages to the extent of Rs.39,786/-. Mr.Tushar Mandlekar, learned advocate for respondent has contended that it is not necessary to go to the report of the surveyor as the appellant Insurance Company has not repudiated the insurance claim on this ground. But in the present case we find that the present respondent/complainant has taken a plea that the report of the surveyor was not at all supplied to the complainant. Further complainant has himself placed on record copies of tax invoice regarding the expenses incurred to the extent of Rs.1,08,886/-. We find that the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal has taken these documents into consideration and on the basis of the same has passed the order directing the appellant to pay the sum of Rs.1,08,886/- alongwith interest. Appellant Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. has not placed on record any document which could go to show that the report of the surveyor was supplied to the complainant and so we feel that the repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurance company clearly amounts to deficiency in service as rightly observed by the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal.
12) During the course of argument the learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon one judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Shiv Villas Resorts Pvt.Ltd.……V/s…..United India Insurance Co.Ltd. delivered on 13 November 2017, wherein it has been observed that report of the surveyor is an important document and has to be duly considered as they are appointed under the Insurance Act 1938 for settling insurance claim. But in the present case surveyor’s report has not been denied by the appellant and so we do not find it necessary to go to this aspect.
13) In the light of the aforesaid discussions we find ourselves unable to accept the contentions advanced by Mr.Verma, learned advocate for appellant that the learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal has committed any error in giving findings or that same were perverse in nature. On the other hand, we find that learned District Consumer Commission Yavatmal has not only applied its mind to the documents and evidence on record but has also given findings which can not be termed as erroneous. We therefore feel that the appeal preferred by the appellant is devoid of any substance and so we proceed to pass the following order.
// ORDER //
- Appeal is hereby Dismissed.
- No order as to cost.
- Copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
