<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant for realization of Insurance amount , Compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a consumer of opp.party and the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-2R 8080. The vehicle had a valid policy with the opp.party with policy No.441202/2004/3721. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.9.2004 at 10 a.m. with another vehicle KL-4/L 619 and th sustained damages. The accident was due to the sole negligence of the other vehicle bearing No.KL-4/L 619 The accident was reported to the opp.party and the vehicle was taken to Sundaram Iyyankar Sons Ltd and repaired by spending a total sum of Rs.92,347/-. The complainant submitted a claim before the opp.party which was repudiated arbitrarily on the sole ground that the driver of the vehicle had only and LMV license and was not having a specific authorization to drive Light Motor Vehicle [Transport] at the time of accident. The repudiation claim is arbitrary, against law, justice and equity. The driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was one Navas who was holding a valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The cause of the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle which hit the complainant’s vehicle. The vehicle owned by the complainant is used only for own use and not being use as a taxi or for transport purpose. There is no deficiency from the part of the driver of the complainant’s vehicle. The repudiation of the policy amounts to the deficiency in service and it is the well settled that the matter repudiation of policy on technical grounds is not founded on facts and law. Hence the complainant claims damages of Rs.92,347/- with interest at 18% and Rs.25,000/- as compensation , Rs. 1,000/- as cost from the opp.party. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on or facts. The definition complaint, complainant, Consumer dispute serve as defined in section 2[1] of the Consumer Protection Act do not cover the claim made out in the complaint. The opp.party issued a comprehensive policy for the complainant’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-4N/619 for a period from 9.1.2004 to 8.1.2005. The vehicle insured under the above policy was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle coming under the category of Light Motor Vehicle. The complainant had reported a claim on 22.9.04 stating that the above vehicle met with an accident on 15.9.2004 at Chennithala. On receipt of the claim the opp.party deputed a licensed loss assessor and surveyor one A Abdul Rasheed who inspected the damaged vehicle and submitted a survey report assessing loss at Rs. 79150/- It was further reported stated that the driver of the above vehicle was not holding a badge to drive the light Motor transport vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant thereafter produced the driving license particulars of the driver. On verification it was found that the driver was holding only light motor vehicle license and a license to driver three wheeler and Badge at the time of accident. The above driver was not holding a badge for driving a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The accident was occurred due to the collision between two vehicles as per the GD entry produced by the complainant before this opp.party. The accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the complainant who was not competent to drive a passenger carrying commercial vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant has entrusted the vehicle to the aforesaid driver fully knowing the fact that he was not holding an effective driving license to drive the category of the vehicle insured under the policy. The insured has violated the mandatory provisions of the driver clause mentioned in the policy as well as the statutory provisions of Central Motor vehicles Rules. Since the complainant has committed breach of policy conditions, the opp.party is entitled to repudiate the claim . Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the repudiation of the policy is valid?<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts. P1 to P6 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Exts. D1 to D7 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points 1 to 3 <br /> <br /> There is no dispute that the vehicle belonged to the complainant at the time of accident had a valid insurance policy. Ext. D1 shows that the policy is a commercial vehicles package policy from which it is obvious it is a transport vehicle. Admittedly the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was one Navas. The contention of the complainant is that the driver was having a valid driving license at the time of accident whereas the definite contention of the opp.party is that the driver though had a valid Light Motor Vehicle driving license had no badge for driving a transport vehicle and therefore, the driver cannot be said to have an effective driving license at the time of incident and as such there is violation of policy conditions. Now the question is what is an effective driving license under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 a person driving a transport vehicle must be in possession of driving license as well as a badge to drive that particular category of the Motor Vehicle. The Honorable High Court of Kerala in the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Anakkal Padmavathi [2000 [3] KLT SN3] has defined an effective driving license under Rule 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 in order to get a license to drive a transport vehicle it is not sufficient that the candidate has a driving license enabling him to drive a light motor vehicle but along with the license he has to satisfy other conditions which would enable him to get a license to drive a transport vehicle. Rule 12 is the provision under which a badge is issued when a license is granted for driving a transport vehicle. So it is obvious that an effective driving license for driving a transport vehicle is a valid driving license and badge.<br /> <br /> Admittedly the driver in this case has no badge to drive a Light Motor Vehicle Ext. D6 is the copy of driving license of the driver of the vehicle at the time of incident, Navas, which clearly shows that at the time of accident the driver had a license for driving a Light Motor Vehicle / A motor cycle - and a three wheeler badge. No other material was produced by the complainant to show that as on the date of accident, the driver had a valid badge to drive a Light Motor Vehicle Ext. D5 is a letter issued by the Regional Transport Officer, National Sector, Thiruvananthapuram to the opp.party. In the above letter it has been clarified that the endorsement of authorization to drive transport vehicle in the case of drivers of Autorikshas, the class of vehicle will be specified so that a driver with authorization cannot drive any other class of vehicle without completing one year after obtaining the license of Light Motor Vehicles. Whenever the driver attains the experience of 1 year after obtaining the MDL of Light Motor Vehicle, he has to produce the above license with the authorization to drive Autoriksha, before the licensing authority for canceling the endorsement specifying the class of vehicle if so decide, and the authority shall not give its retrospective effect. The learned counsel would canvas the point that a driver who is already holding a license and badge to drive the Auto-riksha is eligible to apply before the licensing authority for getting the endorsement of license to drive transport vehicle only after having a minimum waiting period of 1year relying on Ex.D5. The license of Navas shows that he has not applied to the licensing authority for getting an endorsement of the badge authorizing him to drive Light Motor Transport Vehicle as on the date of accident.<br /> <br /> Therefore as argued by the opp.parties there is violation of Sec. 3 [1] of M.V. Act 1988 and drivers clause mentioned in Ext. D1. Since there is violation of the policy condition it cannot be said that the repudiation of the policy is not valid. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> INDEX<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Sachin<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – copy of policy<br /> P2. – Adv. Notice<br /> P3. – Repudiation of claim<br /> P4. – Copy of general Diary.<br /> P5.- receipt<br /> P6. – Valid license<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – R. Asok Kumar.<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Policy with conditions<br /> D2. – Survey report<br /> D3. – Re-inspection report<br /> D4. – Clarification<br /> D5. – True copy of rely<br /> D6. – True copy of Driver License<br /> D7. – Repudiation letter.<br />