Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/195/2010

Devi Lal S/o Shri Bhairu Lal Tahasil Gagrar District Chitorgarh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Bhawar Lal Ahir

08 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 195/2010

 

Devilal s/o Bhairulal r/o Date Tehsil Gangrar Distt. Chittorgarh Rajasthan

 

Vs.

 

Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. through MD, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yervada, Pune & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 8.10.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. B.L.Aheer counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ravindra Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Chittoprgarh dated 28.1.2010 by which the complaint was disallowed.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant had taken an insurance of his tanker from the opposite party insurance company which was effective from 2.3.2008 to 1.3.2009. This tanker met with an accident on 28.11.2008. The insurance claim of the tanker was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that at the time of accident this tanker was carrying hazardous goods ( acid ) and the driver who was driving the tanker did not have any valid license to drive the vehicle which was carrying hazardous goods. The learned DCF accepted the objections of the insurance company and relying on the various judgments cited before it came to the conclusion that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that accident had occurred not due to any fault of the driver but

3

 

another vehicle collided with it from the back side. He has further argued that in similar matter the insurance company has paid the claim. While the learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the driver of the tanker had not valid license to drive the tanker carrying hazardous goods. He has submitted that the special endorsement on the driving license is made by the transport authorities authorizing the person to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods and before this endorsement the person has to undergo a training for one year. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in III (2003) CPJ 125 (NC) Prabhakar Transporters Vs. National Insurance Co.

 

We have heard both the counsels and have perused the record. This is not in dispute that at the time of accident this tanker was carrying hazardous goods ( acid ) . It is not relevant that whether the accident occurred due to fault of the driver driving this tanker or the vehicle coming from back. The question is the complainant had engaged the driver to drive his tanker who did not possess a valid license for driving this tanker. This is a fundamental breach of the policy conditions. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that in

4

 

a similar matter the company had paid the claim to the insured whose driver did not have a license for carrying hazardous goods. The learned counsel for the company has submitted that in that case the vehicle was empty and did not contain any hazardous goods at the time of accident. So that is distinguishable.

 

The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Revision Petition No. 2573/2008 Bherajram Vs. United India Insurance Co. is not applicable here. It was a case of over loading. Another judgment of Hyderabad State Commission in Appeal No. 711/2005 is not helpful here because it was a case of vehicle catching fire and not because of any negligent act of driver but because of some extraneous factors.

 

In view of above discussions, we find no reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned DCF Chittorgarh and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm