First Appeal No. 94 of 2013. Case: Angrej Singh Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case Number:First Appeal No. 94 of 2013
Party Name:Angrej Singh Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.
Counsel:For Appellant: None and For Respondents: Mr. Suryadeep Singh, Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocates for the Respondent No. 1 and Arvind Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
Judges:Surjit Singh, J. (President), Chander Shekhar Sharma and Prem Chauhan, Members
Issue:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 14(2)(a), 2(16), 2(21), 2(23), 2(47)
Citation:I (2014) CPJ 252 (HP)
Judgement Date:October 30, 2013
Court:Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Surjit Singh, J. (President)

  1. No one appears for the appellant, though on the previous date, an Advocate put in appearance as proxy for the Counsel for the appellant. We have heard learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. Appellant Angrej Singh filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 4,00,000, on account of insurance money, besides seeking compensation and litigation cost. It was alleged by the appellant that he owned a Mahindra Pick-up used for carriage of goods, which was insured with respondent No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 and during the currency of insurance policy, vehicle met with an accident resulting in total loss. Also, it was alleged that claim was lodged with the respondents, but they repudiated the same on flimsy grounds that there were four unauthorized persons onboard the vehicle, at the time, when it met with an accident and also the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.

  2. Complaint was contested by the respondents and they supported the repudiation of claim on the grounds that against the registered seating capacity of three persons, there were five persons (including driver) on board the vehicle and also driving licence was not valid and effective.

  3. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, accepting the respondents' plea that the person, who was driving the vehicle, at the time of accident, namely Anil Kumar, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Learned District Forum, however, did not accept the respondents' plea that there were unauthorized passengers on board the vehicle, when the accident had taken place.

  4. Driving licence of Anil Kumar was produced as Annexure C-2. Genuineness of the document, i.e. the driving licence, has not been disputed by the respondents. As per this licence, Anil Kumar is authorised to drive motorcycle, LMV and LGV. Term 'LGV' has apparently been used to connote 'Light Goods Vehicle'. Learned District Forum has held that term 'LGV' is nowhere used in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and, therefore, this term cannot be taken to authorize the holder of licence to drive a transport vehicle. Also, it has been observed by the learned District Forum that licence was issued on 24.6.2009 and it purports to be valid upto 23.6.2013, meaning thereby that it was valid for four years...

To continue reading

Request your trial