Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenging the dismissal of her complaint case by the Ld. District Forum, this statutory Appeal is moved by Smt. Sonali Dey, the Complainant/Appellant.

A dispute cropped up between the Appellant and Respondent Insurance Company over non-settlement of Appellant’s insurance claim. 

It appears that the insured vehicle met a road accident during subsistence of the insurance policy following which the Appellant lodged claim with the Respondent Insurer.  However, the Respondent Insurer refused to settle the claim on the ground that the driver of the ill-fated truck did not have proper driving licence. 

In this regard, it is contended by the Ld. Advocate that the Respondent Insurer did not furnish any such document to show that the driver was authorized to drive only motor cycle.  He also contended that the nature of accident would prove that the driver of the Appellant was not at fault and therefore, according to him, the instant claim could not be withheld by the Respondent Insurance Company.  He also questioned the rationale of making part payment in respect of the subject claim of the Appellant by the Respondent Insurance Company directly to the Respondent financier.

Having heard all the sides and on perusal of the documents on record, we find that the driver of the ill-fated truck, Sri Rajesh Kumar Ram was authorized to drive LMV-GV, Transport, LMV-NT and LMV-Cab; whereas, the insured truck in question belonged to Heavy Goods vehicle class. 

No doubt, driving a Heavy Goods vehicle requires specialized skill which the driver concerned did not possess.  Thus, we find that by plying the insured truck, the driver concerned violated Sec. 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  In view of this the instant claim was inadmissible anyway for which the Respondent Insurance Company could hardly be cursed.

While the aforesaid Section debar anyone from plying a vehicle in any public place, in our considered opinion, it was totally irrelevant whether the concerned driver was at fault or not.

Similarly, though the Respondent Insurance Company made part payment directly to the Respondent financier, in our considered opinion, that in anyway does not make them liable to settle the claim in deference of the settled position of law.  Seemingly, acting bona fide, such advance payment was released to assist the Appellant cope with the huge financial cost required for repairing the damaged vehicle.

For all these reasons, dismissal of the complaint case by the Ld. District Forum is found to be very much in order and therefore, we uphold the same without any interference from our end.

The Appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.  No costs.