DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 79 of 9-04-2019

Decided on : 30-11-2021

M/s Punjab Carbonic Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Arya Samaj Chowk, Bathinda, through Davinder Singh Kohli duly authorized Director.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, MCB No. Z-2-11786/001, Ist Floor, Natha Singh Tower, 100 Ft. Road, Near Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda 151 001, through its Divisional Manager

.... Opposite party

2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda through it’s Authorised Signatory /Manager /Incharge

.....Performa Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate

For the opposite parties : Sh. S.M. Goyal, Advocate, for OP No. 1

Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate, for OP No. 2.

O R D E R

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. M/s. Punjab Carbonic Pvt. Ltd., (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint through its Director Sh. Davinder Singh Kohli under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against United India Insurance Company Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant firm is Pvt. Ltd. company and Sh. Davinder Singh Kohli is duly authorized Director of the complainant firm. The complainant is the registered owner of the Gas Tanker Registration No. AP-16-TY-0610. The said tanker is comprehensively insured (Package Policy) with opposite party No. 1 vide Insurance Certificate No. 2004003117P117173420 w.e.f. 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2019 for the IDV of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The opposite party No. 1 also took the signatures of the Insured on the blank proposal Form as per Regulations of the IRDA and the IDV was fixed by opposite party No. 1 as per IMT and under GR-8 of the IMT.

3. It is alleged that on 06.08.2018, the said Tanker of the Complainant met with an accident near Madavramand. At that time the vehicle was being driven by Kuwinder Singh. In this accident, the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged. The said driver Kuwinder Singh is duly licensed from Distt. Transport Authority with certificate of Hazardous goods and he duly passed the same. The DTO Bathinda office already clarified that the Transport DL is the valid license to drive any type of vehicle even the said truck and there is no provision in the software of the Distt. Transport office to mark special endorsement of Hazardous goods and they also clarified that the certificate is sufficient to drive Hazardous goods vehicle. The said certificate and copy of DL already supplied to the Insurance Co. i.e. opposite party No.1. The complainant lodged claim immediately with the opposite party No. 1 and they appointed spot surveyor on the same day i.e. 06.08.2018 Mr. D. Brahmaiah at the spot who visited the spot and surveyed the loss on the same day under the instructions of the office of opposite party. At the time of accident, the vehicle was empty and the said remark was also given by Mr. D. Brahmaiah in his spot survey report. The opposite party No. 1 also passed the claim of Vehicle No. PB-03-U-3211 (empty Tanker) under the same circumstances in Insurance Policy No.2004003116P117217263. Mr. D. Brahmaiah spot surveyor charged spot survey fee from complainant to the tune of Rs.1,830/- whereas the same is payable by opposite party No.1. The said surveyor duly issued receipt in this regard. The said spot surveyor issued his spot survey report on 08.08.2018 but no copy of the same was ever supplied to the complainant although the same is mandatory.

4. It is pleaded that the above said vehicle was totally damaged in this accident and it was shifted with workshop at M/s Ambica Lorry Mechanical Works, Autonagar, Vijayawada by spending Rs.2,500/- under the instructions of opposite party No. 1 through their spot surveyor Mr. D. Brahmaiah.

5. It is also pleaded that thereafter the opposite party appointed Mr. Ram Prasad Talasila as Final Surveyor from Vijayawada who visited the workshop at M/s Ambica Lorry Mechanical Works, Autonagar, Vijayawada and compelled the complainant to shift the vehicle with Authorised Service Centre. Under compelled circumstances, the complainant shifted the vehicle with M/s Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada who gave the estimates of Rs.15,87,265/- against the IDV of Rs.15,00,000/- which means the vehicle is not repairable as the estimates exceeds 75% of the IDV and as per GR-8 of the IMT the vehicle is Total Loss. Since the the claim was not settled, the complainant wrote letter dated 22.10.2018 to opposite party No.1 and also sent one E-mail to opposite party No.1 in this regard and sent copy to surveyor Mr. Ram Prasad Talasila of Vijayawada but complainant received back the the said letter with the remarks that no such person (Mr. Ram Prasad Talasila) living at this address. Thereafter the complainant again wrote regd. letter dated 22.11.2018 to opposite party No.1 regarding the false appointment of the surveyor and thereafter the opposite party No.1 in convince with the Vijayawada office deputed another surveyor Mr. Rama Prasad and all correspondence started after 22-10-2018 when complainant demanded his claim.

6. It is further alleged that in the correspondence between Vijayawada office and Bathinda office of opposite party No.1, they admitted that they did not inform the appointment of final surveyor which clearly indicates that the opposite party No.1 in connivance with Vijayawada office deputed the final surveyor later on and thereafter prepared the false report in connivance with alleged Mr Rama Prasad. The said surveyor Mr. Rama Prasad prepared false report dated 19.01.2019 to the tune of Rs.10,37,860/- with the help of M/s Ambika Lorry Vijayawada whereas the damaged vehicle was lying with M/s Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.(Authorised Service Centre of Manufacturer), as the same was duly shifted with this service centre under the direction of spot surveyor and officials of opposite party No. 1 as they clearly stated that without the estimates of authorised service centre, they will not access the loss. Under compelling circumstance the complainant shifted his vehicle with above said workshop at Vijayawada and they duly issued the estimates to the tune of Rs. 15,87,265/- and the original estimates duly supplied to the opposite Party No. 1 but Mr. Rama Prasad prepared the report at his house with the connivance of opposite party No. 1 without considering the estimates of M/s Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.(Authorised Service Centre of Manufacturer), which clearly indicates that Officials of Vijayawada office of opposite party No. 1 and alleged Mr. Rama Prasad in connivance with each other reduced the claim drastically and moreover he reduced the labour charges against the IMT as the depreciation is applicable only on the parts and not on the labour.

7. It is alleged that estimated loss is Rs. 15,87,265/- which is total loss as per GR-8 of the India Motor Tariff (IMT), as such the vehicle is total loss as the estimate charges are above the IDV. The complainant inquired many times regarding his claims from the office of the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 did not give any satisfactory reply and sitting over the claim of the complainant without any reason. Due to non- payment of the above said claims i.e. IDV, Survey Fee and Towing Charges etc. by the opposite Party No.1 and due to the wrong acts and conducts of the opposite party No.1 and their surveyors, the complainant has suffered mental agony and pains for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

8. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for direction to opposite party No. 1 to pay to complainant, claim amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (IDV) as total loss plus Rs. 1830/- as survey fee and Rs. 2500/- as towing charges with interest @18% p.a. from the date of loss till payment in addition to compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- besides Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

9. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that complaint has not been filed by duly authorized and competent person. No legal, valid power of attorney or resolution of Board of Directors of complainant company has been produced. The complainant is not an individual human being which should have been working to earn its livelihood, rather it is private limited company, in which there are number of shareholders. Moreover the vehicle in quesion at the time of accident was being plied for commercial purpose and business purpose of company; that the complainant has knowingly, willfully violated the terms and condition of insurance policy; that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1 as alleged in complaint; the complaint is baseless, wrong, vague, self contradictory, illegal, against facts ; that the complainant is estoped from filing this complaint due to its acts, conducts, admissions, omissions and acquiescence; that complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Commission and has not come with clean hands.; that the alleged driving licence of driver of tanker was not having mentioned, entitling him to drive said tanker which HVG and containing hazardous goods; that the complainant is liable to prove that alleged Om Sai Motor Training School, Noida was duly Licenced and duly authorized School, as per Central Government, State Government and Local Body rules, regulations, provisions, instructions, for imparting training to persons to drive vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. Such School is not only required to get approval vide Central Government notification rather also requires to obtain Licence in form 11 from concerned Regional Transport Officer for imparting such training, but the complainant has not produced any such record or copy of notification and certificate on the file; that merely having such certificate of training from such driving School is not, sufficient but there should also have been got made an endorsement to drive heavy goods vehicle on driving Licence, from concerned Transport Authorities of the State. Further merely by saying that there is no provision in the Computer system of DTO to make such endorsement is not sufficient, as such endorsement can also be obtained through manual process because the mandatory provision provided under the Act and Rules are liable to be followed and any violation of the same, would disentitle such person to drive heavy vehicle carrying Dangerous and Hazardous Goods. Thus the opposite party has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service of the opposite party No.1.

10. Further legal objections are that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis joinder of party; that the surveyors appointed by opposite party No.1 to report about the alleged loss after making proper survey and investigation, had made proper inquiry, survey and investigation and reported that the driver of said vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive the vehicle used for carrying the Hazardous Goods as per section 14 of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 read with rule 9 and 132 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989; that as per Section 92 of Evidence Act no oral evidence against the statue or contents of document can be given or admissible and that when the mandatory Provisions of M.V. Act and rules arc very much clear and specific then question of leading any oral evidence regarding the applicability or operation of said provisions does not arise at all nor is permissible under any law.

11. On merits, the opposite party No.1 has pleaded that Gas Tanker No. AP-16-TY-0610 was insured as GCV Public Carrier other than 3 Wheeler Package Policy No.2004003117P17173420 for the period 01-03-2018 to 28-02-2019 subject to its terms and conditions. It is denied that as per said policy complainant was owner of vehicle, rather as per policy of said term M/s Durga Maya Transport Plot No. 1229, Road No.60, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad was owner . Hence, when complaint is not owner of said policy, then it cannot file claim under such policy. The opposite party No.1 received intimation that gas tanker in question was being driven by Kulwinder Singh driver and met with an accident. It is specifically denied that alleged driver Kulwinder Singh was ever having any licence to drive hazardous goods vehicle. There is no validity of DL of Kulwinder Singh to drive hazrdous goods vehicle till 08-02-2019 i.e. on the date of obtaining the details. It is denied that as per office of DTO Bathinda, the transport DL is valid license for driving any type of vehicles and there is no provision in the software of DTO to make special endorsement for hazardous goods vehicle.

12. It is pleaded that alleged vehicle was shifted to the workshop and Mr. Rama Prasad was appointed as surveyor who had given his report after inspection of vehicle at M/s Ambica Lorry Mechanical works, Vijayawada, who have been estimate of Rs, 10,37,860/- for repair, which was less than 75% of IDV. However, the complainant insisted to declare the vehicle under total loss and to pay sum of Rs, 15,00,000/- of IDV value of vehicle.

13. It is further pleaded that that Mr. Rama Prasad Talasila had already died more than three yeas back, so question of appointment of such dead surveyor could have not been done. The opposite party No. 1 vide email dated 30-11-2018 duly informed the complainant in this regard and proper reply was given to letter dated 22-11-2018 by opposite party No. 1. The complainant has duly mentioned in email dated 30-11-2018 that an employee namely Mr. Senthil Kumar was already in contact with surveyor. It is denied that surveyor had directed the complainant to shift the vehicle to any specific workshop as alleged by the complainant. It is specifically denied that estimated loss was Rs, 15,87,265/- rather it was Rs, 10,37860/- which is less than 75% of IDV.

14. It is pleaded that the claim has already been repudiated and duly informed to the complainant and as such complainant not entitled to any amount from opposite party No.1. The claim was duly investigated and considered without any intentional delay. However, there is no intention or willfull delay on the part of opposite party No.1 to decide the alleged claim in question. The claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 11-03-2019 on legal and valid ground after proper requisite consideration, by competent authorities of opposite party No.1 as driver was not having legal, valid and proper driving licence to drive the vehicle, as there was no mandatory endorsement of hazardous goods training certificate on alleged DI, of driver, from concerned Transport Authority. It is denied that there is no provision of endorsement of Hazardous goods in transport office, as the complainant itself had produced DL with such endorsement and obtained claim. The claim in question has been repudiated as per law, on the basis of facts and documents. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

15. Opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable qua opposite party No.2 and no relief has been claimed against opposite party No.2 and in case complaint is allowed qua opposite party No.1 then payment be given to opposite party No.2 being the financier of the vehicle as tanker is mortgaged with opposite party No.2 and that there is no deficiency on the part of replying opposite party No.2.

16. On merits, opposite party No.2 pleaded that the complaint is not connected with opposite party No.2 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

17. In order to prove the claim, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Devinder Singh Kohli dated 09-04-2019 (Ex.C-1), photocopy of RC (Ex.C-2), photocopy of Insurance certificate (Ex.C-3), photocopy of DL (Ex.C-4), photocopy of certificate (Ex.C-5), photocopy of statements of DTO officials (Ex.C-6 and C7) photo copy of receipt (Ex.C-8) photocopy estimate along with photographs (Ex.C-9), photocopy of letters along with postal receipts (Ex.C-10 & C-11) photocopy of e mails containing 19 pages (Ex.C-12) and photocopy of letter ( Ex.C-13).

18. In order to rebut the evidence led by the complainant,the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh dated 20-06-2019 (Ex.OP1/1), photocopy of policy (Ex.OP1/2), photocopy of letter (Ex.OP1/3) photocopy of survey report (Ex.OP1/4), Photocopy of DL verification ( Ex.OP1/5), photocopy of extract of DL ( Ex.OP1/6 & OP1/7),. photocopy of policy (Ex.OP1/8), photocopy of letter ( Ex.OP1/9), photocopy of motor accident report form (Ex.OP1/10), photocopy of e-mails ( Ex.OP1/12 to Ex.OP1/15) photocopy of letter ( Ex.OP1/16), photocopy of RTI application ( Ex.OP1/17) photocopy of reply of RTI ( Ex.OP1/18) photocopy of DL ( Ex.OP1/19) photocopy of letter dated 30-04-2018 regarding verification DL report (Ex.OP1/20) and photocopy of extract of DL( Ex.OP1/21 to OP1/22).

19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record .

20. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant is the owner of vehicle in question and the vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 1 w.e.f. 01-03-2018 to 28-02-2019. It is also not disputed that vehicle met with an accident on 6-08-2018 and intimation was given to the opposite party No. 1. The surveyor was appointed. Loss was got assessed. The complainant submitted claim and the claim of the complainant has been repudiated.

21. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record to prove that driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence or he has not obtained training for hazardous goods vehicles. The complainant has also produced on record copy of Training Certificate of Driver Kulwinder Singh (Ex.C-5) and photocopy of DL of Kulwinder Singh as Ex. C-4. As per this certificate, the driver Kulwinder Singh has obtained training from 29-6-2018 to 02-07-2018. There is nothing to show that this certificate was found fake. Therefore, it is proved that driver Kulwinder Singh has obtained training also and is holding valid licence (Ex. C-4). No separate licence is required to be issued for different vehicle as per Motor Vehicle Act also. Moreover, the vehicle was empty at the time of incident. Therefore, in this case, even no training certificate was required for driver Kulwinder Singh. As such, complainant is not liable for any breach of insurance term and insurance company is liable to pay insurance claim to complainant.

22. To support these submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has cited following case law which are summarized as under :-

(i) 2020 (2) CPJ 415 NC UIIC Vs Prahallad Rai (ii) FAQ No. 3295 of 2016 decoded on 21-5-2019 P&H HC, Balwant Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz (iii) FAO No. 8253 of 2017 decided on 30-01-2019 P&H HC Hardeep Singh Vs. UIIC (iv) FAO 1210 of 2014 decided on 26-3-2018 P&H HC, NIV Vs. Harbans Kaur (v) 2004 (1) CPJ 22 SC, UIIC Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers (vi) Jitendra Kumar Vs. OIC SC Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2003 decided on 17-7-2003 (vii) NIC Vs. Mata Naina Devi NC Revision petition No. 805 of 2016 decided on 12-5-2017 (viii) UIIC Vs. Sabo Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2020 decided on 18-01-2021 Rajasthan High Court (ix) 2008 (4) CPJ 1 SC NIC Vs Nitin Khandewal (x) 2015 (4) CPJ 426 NC Jitendrainh Vs. Iffco Tokio (xi) 2016 (2) CPJ 2 C (CN) Rajesh Bajaj Vs Bajaj Allianz GIC (xii) 2007 (1) CPJ 341 NC, NIA Vs. Jhankar Singh (xiii) 2008 ACJ 516 NIC Vs. Ramasamy (xiv) 2017 ACJ 1386 NIC Vs. Savita Katiyar (xv) 2015 (4) TAC 31 UIIC Vs. Seema (xvi) 2015 ACJ 132 UIIC Vs. A Verlaxmi (xvii) 2018 ACJ 1462 Vijayakumar Vs. Kalpana (xviii) FAO 4535 of 2014 NIA Vs Kanta Devi.

23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that there is no illegality in repudiating the claim. The complainant has admitted that vehicle in question is a gas tanker. Admittedly, the gas is flamable and hazardous. Therefore, only person having special training for driving the vehicle carrying flamable and hazardous goods was entitled to drive the vehicle. The complainant is also aware of the fact that only driver having special training is competent to drive the vehicle. The driver of heavy goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods, should be qualified and having taken training from duly authorized and competent driving school for driving the same and an endorsement regrading the same should have been got made by such driver, on his legal, valid driving licence. But admittedly no such training certificate was produced or given by the alleged driver to concerned transport authorities along with his original driving licence nor any such endorsement has been got made and this fact was well within the knowledge of owner of the vehicle/insured. Hence, he has knowingly and willfully violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question.

24. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has relied upon the following authorities :

(i) 2018 (2) Recent Civil Reports 42 SC Pappu & Ors Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba (ii) 2019 (4) Accident and Compensation Cases 409 UIIC Vs. Saminuddin & Ors (iii) 2016 (4) JKJ 36 UIIC Vs Pawan Sumbly and Ors (iv) 2019 (1) TNMAC 105 Karnataka High Court Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shabana and Ors (v) 1999 (4) Recent Civil Reports 111 SC OIC Vs. Sony Cheriyan (vi) 2003 (3) CPJ 633 Chandigarh State Commission Sukhbir Singh Vs. OIC (vii) 2003(3) CPJ 125 Prabhakar Transporter Vs. National Insurance Co. (viii) 2008(3) CPJ 439 OIC Vs. Surendra Kumar Jain (ix) 2008(3) Recent Apex Judgement (RAJ) 215 G M Haryana Roadways Vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr (x) 2010(84) ACJ 1912 Nagamani Vs. Singarabvelu (xi) 2012 (3) CPJ 492 NC NIC Vs. S Amirtharaj (xii) 2013 Latest HLJ (HP) 705 Jayanti Gas Service Vs. NIC (xiii) FAO 420002912 (O&M) decided on 18-2-2014 Sajjan Singh & another Vs. Ramesh Kumar and others (P&H High Court) (xiv) 2012 (2) CPR 389 Balwinder Kaur Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr (NC) (xv) 2015 (4) PLR 619 Hanuman Singh Vs. Sona Devi (xvi) 2016 (4) JKJ 36 UIIC Vs. Pawan Sumbly & Ors (xvii) 2017 (5) JKJ 399 NIC Vs. Mehraj-ud-din-Bagwa & Ors (xviii) 2017 (5) Recent Civil Reports 370 Joginder Kaur & Ors Vs. Mangal & Ors (xix) 2017(6) Allahabad Daily Judgement 25 Baburam Verma Vs. Additional District Judge No. 9 Sitapur & Ors. (xx) 2018 Accidents Claims Journal 1250 UIIC Vs. Subash Singh & Ors (xxi) 2018 (3) CLT 329 M/s. Dutta Service Station Vs. NIC (xxii) 2018 (3) Punjab Law Repoter 415 NIAC Vs. Sunita Makol & Ors (xxiii) First Appeal No. 347 of 2018 decided 20-12-2018 NIC Vs. Arinderbeer Singh (xxiv) 2019 ACC 608 Sarabjit Kaur & Ors. Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors. (xxv) Revision Petition No. 1051 of 2015 decided on 25-8-2010 (NC) Ram Asra Vs. NIC (xxvi) CMA No. 1164 of 2012 & MP No. 1 of 2012 NIC Vs Kasambu decided on 27-4-2021(Madras High Court) (xxvii) 2021(1) Air Karnataka High Court Reports 18 H Kumari & Ors Vs. B C Sridhara & Ors. (xxviii) 2021(1) Transport and Accidents Claims Cases 492 Sarabjit Kaur & Ors. Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.

25. We have carefully gone through, the record, case law cited by learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions.

26. Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant got insured his vehicle with opposite party No. 1. The insurance was valid from 1-03-2018 to 28-02-2019. The vehicle/tanker in question met with an accident on 6-08-2018 wherein the insured tanker was damaged. The complainant submitted claim and completed the material formalities but the opposite parties repudiated claim.

27. Repudiation letter dated 11-3-2019 (Ex. OP-1/9) is produced on file by opposite party. Plea of the opposite party as taken in repudiation letter as well as detailed in their written reply is that the driver of heavy goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods, should be qualified and having taken training from duly authorized and competent driving school for driving the same and an endorsement regrading the same should have been got made by such driver, on his legal,valid driving licence and no such training certificate was produced or given by the alleged driver to concerned transport authorities along with his original driving licence nor any such endorsement has been got made.

28. Rule 9 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with the education qualification for driver of goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. As per this rules, in addition to education qualification, a certificate of having successfully passed course consisting of syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods is also required. The Motor Vehicles Rules are statutory rules. The compliance of these rules is also required. As per these rules, course consisting of syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods is also required.

29. The complainant has placed on file photocopy of driving licence of driver (Ex. C-4) and training certificate (Ex. C-5) issued by Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, District G.B. Nagar (U.P.) of the driver Kulwinder Singh to prove that the driver was having valid, legal and effective driving licence and he has obtained special training also. Even per Ex. OP-1/18 produced on file by opposite party No. 1 it is no-where mentioned that endorsement is necessary whereas there is mentioned that training for driving Hazardous goods is necessary and complainant has produced on file training certificate Ex. C-5. The opposite party has neither proved that driving licence of driver is not genuine nor that training certificate produced by complainant is fake.

30. It is evident that the driver was having valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle and also the driver had undertaken a training programme for safe transportation of hazardous goods as per Motor Vehicle Rule 9, but without having endorsement on the DL. However, mere absence of endorsement on driving licence would not have disqualified the driver to drive the vehicle carrying goods of hazardous nature. Carrying or non-carrying of hazardous substance have no nexus with the cause of accident. In such circumstances, the breach of not having obtained endorsement is not so fundamental as to have contributed to the cause of accident.

31. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered opinion that mere endorsement on the driving licence does not increase the profession skill of the driver. The opposite party No.1 cannot escape its liability to pay the claim. Thus, repudiation of claim by the opposite party No. 1without any basis amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

32. Resultantly, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as assessed by surveyor with interest @9% P.A. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 11-3-2019 till payment.

33. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

34. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

35. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

Announced :

30-11-2021

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

President

(Shivdev Singh)

Member