PER MR.H.K.BHAISE, HON’BLE MEMBER

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had purchased the car bearing No.MH-01-BD-8740 for earning his livelihood and driving the car for hire and reward and giving it on rent. He had taken motor insurance policy from the opponent w.e.f. 1^st March, 2013 to 28^th February, 2014.  He had given the car to one Ranabhai Patel for marriage at Jaipur.  The car met with an accident at Jaipur on 6^th November, 2013.  In the accident, some family members were badly injured and two persons were dead.  The car was damaged.  Police complaint was lodged.  The claim was submitted to the opponent.  The opponent repudiate the claim vide letter dated 22^nd January, 2014.  The claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver was not holding valid driving license of transport class.  The complainant had already submitted driving license to the opponent authorizing him to drive Light Motor Vehicle.  As there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, the complainant has filed this complaint for insurance claim of Rs.5,96,670/- with interest.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental torture and Rs.25,000/- for advocate fee and Rs.15,000/- for cost of litigation.

2)                The opponent/Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement.  The policy is admitted.  The complainant is not the consumer therefore the complaint is not maintainable.  The driver was not holding effective driving license thereby the complainant has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy.  The claim was rightly repudiated therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

3)                The complainant and his advocate were absent for argument therefore argument of learned advocate for the opponent was heard. After going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced the copy of R.T.O. registration of vehicle.  The vehicle is registered with the R.T.O. as LMV T. Taxi in the name of Amir Tours and Travels.  The complaint is filed by Shri Shabbir A. Sayyed, Proprietor of Amir Tours and Travels.  Admittedly, the vehicle was given for marriage purpose.  As per record, at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by Ranabhai Patel.  The complainant has not produced the driving license of the driver but it is produced by the opponent.  It is issued for Motor Cycle with Gear and LMV Non Transport Car.  The vehicle was registered as transport taxi.  Therefore, the vehicle was transport vehicle.  The driving license produced by the complainant at the time of claim before the opponent is only for Motor Cycle with Gear and LMV Non Transport Car and not for transport vehicle.  The opponent issued several letters to the complainant to produce the effective driving license with permission to drive the transport vehicle.  The complainant failed to produce it therefore the opponent repudiate the claim vide letter dated 22^nd January, 2014.  Before this Forum also, the complainant has not produced effective driving license of the concern driver authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle. 

5)                Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act describes the transport vehicle as (47) transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.  Section 2(35) of the Act defines a public service vehicle as (35) public service vehicle means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Further, section 2 (25) of the Act defines a motorcab as motorcab means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. From the above defitions, it is clear that a transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, or a private vehicle including maxicab, motorcab etc.  The vehicle in the present complaint was registered as transport taxi. At this juncture the learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.579 of 2013, in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. –Versus- Seema, decided on 6^th May, 2014.  In para 34, 35 and 37 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under :

Para 34 : It is evidently clear from the above provisions laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 / Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 that the basic requirements of age, qualification, medical certificate, period of licence etc. are entirely different for the grant of a licence for a transport vehicle. It is true that the definition of LMV in section 2(21) of the Act says that LMV means a transport vehicle, but this definition does not say that the holder of a licence for any vehicle is authorised to drive a transport vehicle as well. Had it been the intention of the Legislature that a person holding a licence for Light Motor Vehicle is authorised to drive a light commercial vehicle (Light transport vehicle), they would not have prescribed entirely different set of conditions/requirements for the grant or renewal of a licence for a transport vehicle.

Para 35 : The natural corollary of this discussion leads to the irresistible conclusion that a person having a licence for LMV only is debarred from driving a transport vehicle unless he has the proper authority or endorsement to this effect from the competent transport authority. The said transport authority is legally bound to verify the facts regarding age, qualification, medical condition, etc. in accordance with the statutory provisions before giving authorisation for driving such a vehicle. It is clear, therefore, that without such authorisation, a person cannot be stated to be in possession of a valid and effective driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. 

Para 37 :  From the above discussion, it becomes abundantly clear that a person who is holding a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, does require the requisite endorsement from the licensing authority to enable him to drive a transport vehicle, including a light commercial vehicle. In the absence of such endorsement, he cannot be stated to be in possession of a valid and effective driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. 

In this judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has explained the meaning of transport vehicle.  The vehicle in the instant complaint before us was registered as transport taxi.  It was given on hire for marriage purpose.  Therefore, it was necessary to engage the driver having effective driving license authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle.  The driving license on record did not authorize the driver to drive the transport vehicle.  In the driving license itself, there is specific endorsement of the R.T.O. as LMV Non Transport Car.  As the driver was not holding effective valid driving license at the time of accident, the complainant has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy.   Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the claim.  The opponent has rightly repudiated the claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 11^th March, 2016