No Compensation For Mountain Accidents Without Hill Endorsement On Driving License, Uttarakhand Commission Clears National Insurance Company’s Liability

Brief Facts of the Case:

The case centres around an incident that transpired on June 13, 2020, involving a vehicle owned by Kunwar Singh (“Complainant”). The said vehicle, loaded with groceries, was being driven by Kishan Singh (“Driver”) when it met with an accident in Bageshwar, Uttarakhand. The vehicle veered off the road and fell into a gorge, resulting in significant damage to both the vehicle and its cargo. The vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited (“Insurance Company”) during the period from October 22, 2019, to October 21, 2020. The key point of contention arose when the insurance company repudiated the complainant’s claim for compensation, contending that the driving license of the driver during the accident lacked hill endorsement, making him unauthorized to drive in hilly areas. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nainital (“District Commission”).

The complainant contended that the mishap occurred due to a mechanical failure rather than the driver's skill. He asserted that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license. After the accident, he promptly reported the incident to both the police and the insurance company, submitting a comprehensive claim for the damages incurred. The complainant argued that he had provided all necessary documents to the insurance company to substantiate his claim.

The insurance company contested the claim on the grounds that the driver’s driving license lacked the essential hill endorsement. This absence, according to the insurance company, meant that the driver was unauthorized to drive in hilly regions. Therefore, the insurance company argued that any claim stemming from an accident occurring in such challenging terrains should be invalidated. To support their position, the insurance company referred to previous cases that upheld the importance of adhering to driving regulations, especially in areas with varying terrain, to ensure safety and mitigate potential risks.

The District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, directing the insurance company to pay him a compensation of Rs 2.25 lakh for the loss and damages incurred due to the accident. The decision was based on the premise that the driver was authorized to drive the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Unsatisfied with this verdict, the insurance company challenged the decision in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (“State Commission”) arguing that the driver’s driving license lacked hill endorsement, a requirement for driving in mountainous regions.

Observations by the Commission:

The key point of contention revolved around the driver’s authorization to drive the vehicle on hilly roads, as stipulated by the presence or absence of hill endorsement on his driving license. The State Commission noted that the driver’s driving license did not include the requisite hill endorsement, which was necessary for driving in mountainous regions according to Rule 193 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. This regulation was designed to ensure the safety of drivers and passengers on challenging terrains and to mitigate the risks associated with driving in hilly areas.

Further, the State Commission acknowledged the significance of hill endorsement as more than a mere formality. It emphasized that this endorsement was crucial in regions characterized by varied and challenging terrain, such as the hilly landscapes of Uttarakhand. The State Commission highlighted that the absence of hill endorsement rendered the driving license invalid for driving in hilly areas, which included the location of the accident.

In light of the documentary evidence presented, such as the FIR, claim forms, and survey reports, the State Commission established that Kishan Singh's driving license lacked the required endorsement. Therefore, the State Commission concluded that Kishan Singh was unauthorized to drive the vehicle in hilly areas at the time of the accident, which subsequently invalidated any claims arising from an accident in such terrains.

Based on this reasoning, the State Commission upheld the insurance company’s contention that the complainant was not entitled to compensation for the damages incurred in the road accident. It emphasized the necessity of adhering to driving regulations, especially when navigating challenging terrains, to ensure the safety of all parties involved. As a result, the State Commission set aside the District Commission’s decision and ruled against awarding compensation to the complainant.

Case: Regional Branch Manager, National Insurane Company Ltd. vs Kunwar Singh Dev

Case No.: A/159/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: Mr. Deepak Ahluwalia

Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Shailendra Pundir

Click Here To Read/Download Order