Presents:
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Smt.S.Rath,Member.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 22nd day of June 2015.
C.C.No.18 of 2014.
1.Smt. Nalini Sahu, wife of late Saroj Kumar Sahu.
2.Subhendu Kumar Sahu s/o late Saroj Kumar Sahu.
3.Sonali Sahu daughter of late Saroj Kumar Sahu.
All are Resident of village- Karuanjhar, P.O.Badbandh,
P.S.Tusura,Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainants.
-Versus-
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office, Cuttack, at-Mangalam Nivas 2nd Floor,
In front of H.D.F.C.Bank,Cuttack. Odisha-753001.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv.for the complainants- Sri A.K.Mohanty. & Associates.
Advocate for the O.P. – Sri P.K.Biswal.
Date of filing of the case- 25.03.2014
Date of order. –22.06.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
Brief facts leading to the case is that the complainant Smt.Nalini Sahu is represented in the complain application being the wife, in deceased of Saroj Kumar Sahu, the insured under Policy No.345100/31/2012/1787, issued against the vehicle No.OR-03H-5099 (Bolero XL) on dt.20.12.2011.
2. The complainant also averred that the vehicle met with an accident on dt.08.03.2012 at about 3 A.M. while the deceased was traveling with family relatives to Bhubaneswar. The incident has been reported at Handapa Police station in the district of Angul. The P.S. case No.28/2012 corresponding to GR Case No.117/2012, S.D.J.M. (Athamalik). It is stated by the above accident, the vehicle was substantially damaged, occupants fatally injured and the injures succumbed to his injury. Consequent to this occurrence of damage. The claim No.340011/31/2013/0300378 was lodged. Surveyor deputed, loss assessed but on dated 20.11.2012 the claim was repudiated for violation of drivers clause on the ground that the driving license of Sri Abhimanyu Kunar was not valid on the date of accident. The insurer has unjustifiably and arbitrarily repudiated the claim. Also praying to make necessary direction to O.P to settle the O.D claim of the vehicle, inclusive of P.A. covered in the policy
3. Relied on legal heir certificate, Insurance policy, R.C.Book, Permit and fitness certificate, Driving license No.OR-0320010001973, GR certified copies and letter of Repudiation and latter written note argument with catena of judgments in photo copies.
4. On notice the O.P appeared and filed the version admitting the Bolero vehicle bearing Eng. No.GHB4M79981 and ChassisNo.MA1WG2GHKB2M64387 was issued with Policy No.345100/31/2012/1787 being valid from dt.20.12.2011 to 19.12.2012 for passenger’s carrying commercial vehicle. Further admitting as per the policy contract the insurer has undertake to satisfy the loss as well as risk covered under personal accident for the owner-cum-driver and contending that the owner of the vehicle violated the policy contract in driving license clause. That the driver had not a valid and effective driving license to drive passenger carrying commercial vehicle and the driver had not renewed his license ( transport vehicle) from 10.09.20010 to dt.25.04.2012 and was issued much after the accident. The accident occurred and reported was not in the knowledge of the O.P.
5. The O.P in admission of para-7 content of the application averred claim lodged and by investigation it is revealed, the driving license was invalid on the relevant time of accident. For which the O.P has been compelled to repudiate the claim as there is no cause of action in the present case to ensue.
6. So the complaint petition is not maintainable in the eyes of the law and also same is barred by the law of limitation and liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency of service by this O.P. Prayed the petition may kindly be dismissed with a compensatory cost and the complainant is not entitle to any claim and the case is liable to be dismissed for the own latches of the owner/deceased of the vehicle as per terms and conditions of insurance policy.
7. Heard the learned counsels at boths end. Perused the extensive materials and documents of the complaints end. The counsels argued vehemently in favour and countenance, gone through the extensive argument and learned submissions in interact. Comprehensive perusal reveals;-
8. In obtaining a policy from the O.P, the complainant (deceased) is a consumer and as application made by the representative is abide with law and the legal heir document furnished do corroborate the facts and informations on representation. Further we notice the cause of action ensues on dt. 20.11.2012 and the case does not suffer barred of limitation nor jurisdiction is ousted on any context so it is rest assured, the complaint petition is well within the law.
9. We also found the core question revolves, on repudiation of the claim and substantive provision of law as quoted in support. It is a fact, complaint was deceased while traveling to Bhubaneswar with his family. The policy issued against the vehicle No.OR-03H-5099 was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle under package policy Zone “C” and bears a driver clause and parties to the case in admission that name of the driver at the relevant time of accident was Abhimanyu Kunar being retained with driving license No.OR-0320010001973 in endorsement of light motor vehicle Non-transport w.e.f dt.06.01.2001 and transport CAB w.e.f 11.09.2007.
10. We notice, no contention raised on date of occurrence name of the driver and driving license No except the authorization of endorsement by the licensing authority during the relevant time of accident.
11. The drivers clause on insurance policy issued reads;- Any person including insured, provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner license may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of passengers at the time of accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.
12. Perusal of the driving license certified copy speaks, the transport endorsement was available from dt.11.09.2007 to dt.10.09.2010 and the license was not renewed from dt.11.09.2010 to dt 24.04.2012, and the accident occurred on dt.08.03.2012 during tenure of non renewed period and subsequent renewal was no effect in settlement of the own damage claim.
13, The complainant relied on catena of judgments, out of which the Apex Court held and reported in 2008 ACJ at page-721-“the vehicle was registered as a transport vehicle, it can’t be said that the driver was not having effective driving license and the Hon’ble High Court, Orissa reported in 2002 ACJ at page-1187 support the case of the complainant wherein driver had a valid license to drive the offending vehicle, which had expired before the date of accident. But the driver has not been disqualified from holding a license. Held. There was no any violation, likewise in the present case, the driver Abhimanyu Kuanr was never disqualified.
14, Before we deal with the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988;.
Section-3(1) of the Act inter alia stipulates that;- Necessity for drive license( .) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle.
Section-15- Renewal of driving license-(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving license issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of expiry”.
Section-14- Currency of licenses to drive motor vehicles- Clause (2) (a)- In the case of a license to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years.
15. Having noted the relevant statutory provisions, we may now advert to the facts at hand. As noticed above, the stand of the complainant is that the claim preferred by the claimant could not warrant a process, as the driving license was not renewed, although taken to be renewed ,which will be effective from the date of expiry and not to prior to the date in such a situation. Section 15 and 14 is violated by the petitioner that relates to the terms and conditions of the policy. The Judgment incorporated in reliance to the case are subject of Third party losses and not relates to own damage claim. So we assume the currency of license statutorily speaks Three years and on the date of expiry it is not effective as the plain reading tells to and non effective leads violation of the clause as contemplated under the policy.
16. It is clear that if an application for renewal of license is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the license continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry, whereas, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, gets attracted and the license is renewed only with effective from the date of its renewal, meaning thereby, that in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the license and the date of its renewal, there is no effective license in existence. The provision is clear and admits no ambiguity. The stand of the claimant before us was that since the driver was holding a valid license and had not been disqualified from holding an effective license the stipulation in the afore-extracted condition was not infringed. In our view the argument as stated has no force to stand. The driver had no valid and effective driving license as contemplated under section-3 of the Act, we are convinced that during relevant date of occurrence, he did not hold at all an effective driving license as required in the terms and conditions governing the policy on the date of accident i.e 08.03.2012.
17. As a matter of fact, in view of the clear mandate of section-3 of the Act, the deceased driver was not even permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place. Further more, the claimant not only committed breach of the terms of the policy, he also violated the provisions of section 5 of the Act by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not hold a valid license on the date of accident. In our opinion, therefore the O.P is not liable to indemnify the claimant for the loss suffered by him in the accident of the insured vehicle & personal accident cover. We are fortified in our view by the decision made in National Insurance Co.Ltd. –Versus- Jarnail Singh & Others-JT 2001 (Suppl 2) SC 218 (Para-7) and Ashok Gangadhar Maratha –Versus- Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd (1999) 6 SCC (620) Para (6).
18. In view of the facts explained above, when it has been brought out clearly that the statutory provision has been derailed and also same amply substantiated, in such a paradigm the complainant stand is too feable to accommodate. Thus basic violation of mandate under various section does not permit to consider the own damage and owner driver relief.
Hence ordered
ORDER
On the above noted context the complaint petitioner’s case is disallowed. The O.P has not committed any fault, leading to deficiency of service. However because of long travail,of the petitioner, the O.P is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs 500/- as cost u/s.14-1(i) to the complainant within 20 days of this order failing which @ Rs 5/- per day will accrue on same till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM ON 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2015.
I agree. I agree.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
