KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.770/2011
JUDGMENT DATED : 31.03.2012
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vishnu Buildings, K.P. Vallon Road, : APPELLANT
Kadavanthara, Cochin.
(By Adv:Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs.
Harikumar,
House No.8, Reddiar Compound, : RESPONDENT
Mullackal, Alappuzha.
(By Adv:Sri.Babu Joseph)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.22/09 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint and also to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that the Tata Indica car owned by him having taxi permit used to be rented out. On 1.3.07 the vehicle was taken on rent by one Pradeep Kumar for a trip to Alappuzha and on the way met with an accident and Pradeep kumar died. According to the complainant one Benny Joseph was driving the vehicle and that he was having a valid driving license. It is contended that the complainant is entitled for damages on total loss basis. The claim has been repudiated on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving license to drive the taxi. It is contended that the driving license is sufficient to drive transport vehicle, the weight of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs. He has claimed compensation amounting to Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 12%.
3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that the policy was issued for commercial vehicle. The driver was not having the license and badge to drive the taxi car. Hence there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also pointed out that the driving license produced along with the claim form having No.QN/1831/99 was a fake one. The driving license of the driver having No.KO/2030/03 authorised the driver to drive LMV only. The liability if any is limited as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RWs 1 to 3, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B3.
5. The Forum has held that the person having a valid driving license to drive LMV is empowered to drive a taxi car and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,75,000/- which according to the Forum could be the approximate value of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
6. We find that it stands established vide the evidence of RW1, Joint RTO that Ext.B2 license in the name of Benny Joseph produced by the complainant along with the claim is a fake one. As per Ext.B2 he was authorized to drive transport vehicle also. On the other hand, Ext.A7 driving license produced before the Forum would show that he is authorized to drive only light motor vehicles. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellants vide rule 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle is required and only if the person is having one year experience of driving the light motor vehicle he will be provided with the required authorization ie badge to drive transport vehicle. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the incapacity of the driver is a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence settlement even on non standard basis is not permissible. (National Insurance Company Vs. Sansar Chand) III (2010) CPJ 256 (NC). Counsel has also relied on the decision in New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, 2008 (2) KLT Suppl.366 (SC) wherein it has been held that if the driver of the transport vehicle was only having license to ply light motor vehicle the insured is not liable towards the owner of the vehicle.
7. The counsel for the respondent/complainant has relied on the decision of the National Commission downloaded from the net, Kanakalakshmi Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. dated:31.3.2010 wherein it has been held vide section.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act that with respect to a motor cab or motor cycle, specific authorization is not required. We find the above decision is with respect to the “rent a cab” scheme 1989. There is no case for the complainant that the vehicle was rented out as per the rent a cab scheme. He has also not produced any license of authorisation with respect to the rent a cab scheme regarding his vehicle.
8. The counsel for the respondent has sought for application of settlement on non standard basis vide the decision in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC)) as per which with respect to the violations of license conditions, settlement can be made vide the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Company as per which after deducting 25% of the claim amount the rest can be allowed when there are violation of the conditions like the driver is not having a proper driving license etc.
9. We find that in the instant case even as per Ext.A7 copy of the driving license produced which is admittedly genuine the same has been issued on 1.9.03 and the date of accident is 1.3.07. Hence the driver was perfectly entitled to obtain the badge ie after one year of obtaining the license to drive LMV. In the circumstances we find that it would be just to direct the opposite parties to settle the matter on non standard basis. Hence we do so.
10. In the instant case the surveyor vide Ext.B3 report has assessed the net liability at Rs.1,92,479.96. The same is rounded to Rs.1,92,480/-. After deducting 25% the amount would work out to Rs.1,44,360/-. The opposite party/appellants are directed to pay the above amount to the complainant. The direction to pay interest and compensation is set aside. The opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay Rs.1,44,360/- to the complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 9% from 31.3.2012 the date of this order.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
VL.
