<br /> <br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the registered owner of Ambassador Car bearing Reg.No.KL-2/C 7470 on 11.8.2003 at about 4.15 a.m. a Lorry bearing Reg.No.TDA 6854 hit against the car on the Chukkuvali – Puthiyakavu road near the western side of the Thodiyoor Bridge sustaining the heavy damages to the car. The car at the time of accident was driven by one C.K. Raghavan, uncle of the complainant who is having a valid driving licence No.[RQK 749/95] and he was using the car for the personal purpose of family members. The car was registered with the opp.party and at the time of accident the car was having a valid insurance. After the accident the car was taken to S.M. Automobiles, Bharanikkav and repairs were done spending Rs.20,000/- . The complainant thereafter duly filed an application claiming compensation before the opp.party. But the opp.party rejected the claim on the ground that the badge details of the driver was not produced. The complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.20,000/- with 12% interest as damages. The act of the opp.party of not settling the claim of the complainant till this date amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party filed a version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opp.party had issued an OD basic policy in favour of the vehicle KL-2C/7470 an Ambassador diesel Tourist car. It is a contract carriage as per the Motor Vehicle Act and it bears a Tourist permit . As per the terms of the policy the persons entitled to drive this vehicle means any person including the insured provided that the person driving a vehicle holds an effective and valid driving license to drive the category of the vehicle . Since the vehicle involved contract carriage Tourist Taxi, it is a commercial vehicle and it shall necessarily given by a person who is holding a valid driving license and a badge which is proper driving license as per the Motor Vehicle Act. It is true that vehicle met with an accident on 16.8.2003 as per the claim form was submitted by the complainant. The claimant is bound to submit the relevant records of the vehicle including driving license with badge Permit, Fitness Certificate etc. Though the complainant has submitted claim form on 20..8..2003 no supporting documents were produced before this opp.party on 23.9.2003 this opp.party had directed in writing to produce the required details. Since the opp.party sent a reminder on 13.10.2003 thereafter on 2.12.2003 a registered letter was issue wherein it was stated that with a complainant failed to produce the above documents. The claim will be closed has not claim thereafter on 21.1.2004 a final notice directing the complainant to submitted the original badge inspite these letters the complainant failed to produce the badge at the time of accident. And accordingly the file as no claim . The claim was repudiated only on the ground that produce the badge of the driver there is lno deficiency of service on the part of the opp.party and hence they prays for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> [1] Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.<br /> [2] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 ismarked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked.<br /> <br /> Points [1] & [2]<br /> <br /> As a matter of fact there is no dispute that at the time of accident the car which is a tourist taxi and a transport vehicle was being driven by which a relative of the complainant. Though he had driving license he had no badge. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle at the time of accident was being used by the family member and not for any commercial purpose. Therefore the driver had not have a badge as claimed by the opp.parties. As per the provisions to Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 Rule s 6 to 12 a person holding a license to drive LMV he also make an application for grant of badge to drive transport vehicle. And so as per the above provisions a person must be in possession of a badge to drive transport vehicle. So according to the learned counsel for the opp.party the effect a valid driving license so far as driver of a transport vehicle is concerned is one who is a possessing a licensing and badge to drive the same.<br /> <br /> The learned counsel of the opp.party would argued that even if driver of the car at the time of accident was founded a Light Motor Vehicle licen se the same cannot be considered as effective driving license and in support of the contension he has relied on a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Anakkal Padmavathy reported in 2000 [3] KLT [SN] 3 thereafter he argued that there is violation of policy conditions to learned of counsel of the complainant argued that at the time of accident a vehicle given a personal use and driver who was driving the vehicle have a valid driving license. Thereafter according to him no badge is necessary it is further argued that valid driving license includes the licensing Authority would have badge along the license and thereafter arguments of the opp.party is not tenable that arguments cannot be accepted badge is insisted only for a personal who is driving a transport vehicle and not a ordinary vehicle there is absolutely anything other than a n averments of the complainant to show that the car at the time of accident was being used for personal use. Even assuming that it was being used for personal use it being a transport vehicle the driver ought have a badge out side. The complainant has no case that the person who was a car at the time of accident had a badge and therefore it cannot be said that the repudiation of the claim ii wrong. We find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp.party. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. C.K. Suresh Kumar<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Policy certificate.<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Rudran Nair<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – OD Basic Policy<br /> D2. – Notices and reminders sent by the opp.party to the complaint<br />