KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 468/2009

JUDGMENT DATED: 31.12.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              : MEMBER

1. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,,                   : APPELLANTS

     Angamali, rep.by its Manager,

2. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

     Divisional Office, Thrissur,

     Rep.by its Manager.

(rep.by its Divisional Manager,

  Thakaraparambu, Trivandrum)

(By Adv.V.Manikantan Nair)

             Vs.

Anitha Jayan,                                             : RESPONDENT

W/o Jayan, Kannoly House,

Karuvannoor.P.O.,

(Adv. Selvi- Amicus curiae)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.853/05 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.7815/.34 and compensation of Rs.3000/- and cost of Rs.500/-.    2. The case of the complainant is that the autoriksha owned by him having full coverage with the opposite parties met with an accident.  According to him he had spent a sum of Rs.10864/- for repairs.  The claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver was not having badge.  The complaint is filed claming repair charges of Rs.10864/- with interest at 12% and compensation of Rs.10000/-.

          3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that the driver at the time of the accident was not having a valid badge which is mandatory as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The vehicle involved is a good carriage commercial vehicle.  It is also pointed out the loss assessed by the surveyor is only Rs.7815.34.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 series to P4 and Exts.R1 to R7.

          5. The Forum has allowed the complaint over ruling the contention of the opposite parties with respect to the badge on the ground that as per Ext.R7 policy conditions there is no stipulation that the driver should be having badge. 

          6. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the driver should be having an effective driving license which is mentioned in the certificate of insurance itself ie. Ext.R5. Effective driving license means that the person should have the required authorization to drive the vehicle as per law.  Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically provides that no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so.  The Motor Vehicle Rules mentions the conditions with respect to the authorization to drive a transport vehicle.  It is not disputed in the instant case the driver at the time was not having the badge ie, the authorization to drive a transport vehicle.  Ext.P3 copy of the license would show that it is only the driving license with respect to light Motor vehicles, three wheelers and motor cycle.  Of course with respect to the three wheelers the requirement of experience of one year is not insisted but yet the driver should have the authorization to drive the transport vehicle.  In the circumstances it stands established that the driver at the time was not having an effective driving license  in the sense he was not authorized to drive transport vehicle which is a violation of the conditions of the policy.

          7. All the same it has to be noted that the complainant was eligible to obtain the authorization to drive the transport vehicle that is the goods autorikshaw in the instant case but he had only failed to        comply with the formality of obtaining the authorization in this regard.   In the circumstances we find that it would be reasonable to direct the insurer to settle the claim on non standard basis. The National Commission has approved  the application of non standard basis of settlement in similar cases ( National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Kamal Singhal IV 2010 CPJ 297 (NC) ).  In the circumstances the opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay 75% of Rs.7815.34 with interest at 9% from the date of complaint, that is, 11.8.05.  The direction to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- is set aside.  The direction to pay cost of Rs.500/- is sustained.  The opposite parties will make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for 12 % interest from 31.12.2011 the date of this order.

          Office  will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU                 : PRESIDENT

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                     : MEMBER

ps