BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.128/2009 Order dated this the 1st day of March 2010 COMPLAINANT/S 1. Maqbul Ahamed S/o Late Mohammed Khasim, 2. Smt.Kamarunisa W/o Maqbul Ahamed, Both are R/at D.No.1112, 10th Cross, Noorani Mohalla, Halahalli, Muslim Block, Mandya City. (By Sri.R.P.Shadaksharamurthy., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1.The Manager,ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., Mythri Arcade, New Kantharaja Urs Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysore 570 009. 2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., Interways Building, No.11, 401/402, 4th Floor, New Link Road, Malada, Mumbai 400 064. Register Jewellary Bundry Karlar Complex, Mumbai 51. 3.I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., Sri.Puttaswamy, Proprietor, Dyananda Motors, M.C.Road, Mandya. (INPERSON) (By Sri.D.G.Niranjanamurthy., Advocate for 1st & 2nd O.P.) Date of complaint 04.11.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 02.12.2009 Date of order 01.03.2010 Total Period 2 Months 27 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming insurance amount against the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties. 2. The case of the Complainants is that their son Mohammed Mujahid met with a motor vehicle accident on 14.11.2007 infront of Fire Station, Mandya, when the Scorpio car No.KA-20-MH.8181 dashed against the motor cycle bearing No.KA.11-R-5419 in which he was riding and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Scorpio car the accident took place and the rider Mohammed Mujahid sustained severe injuries to the head and other parts of the body and finally succumbed to the injuries and police have registered Crime No.206/07. The Complainants filed M.V.C.8798/2007 at Bangalore and it was allowed in favour of the Complainants on 19.02.2009. At the instance of 3rd Opposite party, the deceased Mohammed Mujahid got insured his motor cycle No.KA-11-R-5419 on 29.05.2007 with 1st & 2nd Opposite parties Insurance Company and insurance was valid from 29.05.2007 to 28.05.2008. The deceased owner of the motor cycle was having driving licence. The motor cycle was got repaired at Dyananda Motors, Mandya and they have furnished the estimate of the repairs on 10.01.2008. It is the duty of the Opposite party Insurance Company to reimburse the repair charges of the motor cycle and also personnel insurance of Rs.1,00,000/-. Though, the Complainants sought for the insurance amount, the Opposite parties have repudiated the claim by their letter dated 17.03.2008 stating that the deceased was not holding valid driving licence. Therefore, the Opposite party Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service. On these grounds, the Complainants have sought for Rs.27,705/- towards the repair charges and insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and also compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony with interest. 3. The 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have filed version contending that the Complainants are not consumers and complaint is not maintainable. Not admitting the averments made in para 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7. It is contended that the complaint is concocted. It is pleaded that at the time of accident, the owner of the vehicle i.e., Mohammed Mujahid was not having valid driving licence to drive the motor bike. He was having only learner licence and he was driving the motor bike without valid driving licence and by that he clearly violated the conditions of the policy. The repudiation is fair and Opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 3rd Opposite party has filed version admitting that he is the agent of 1st & 2nd Opposite parties and at the instance of the owner of the vehicle, he got insured the motor bike, when he purchased the motor cycle from them. 5. During trial, the 1st Complainant has filed affidavit and has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.10. On behalf of the 1st & 2nd Opposite party, affidavit of H.B.Guruprasad is filed. 6. We have heard both the sides. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are justified in repudiating the claim of the insurance? 2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the repair charges and insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainants are the parents of one Mohammed Mujahid, who was the owner of motor vehicle bearing No.KA-11-R-5419 having insurance from the Opposite party Insurance Company from 29.05.2007 to 28.05.2008 and further, when the insured Mohammed Mujahid was riding the said motor cycle, the vehicle met with an accident on account of the hit by Scorpio car bearing No.KA.20-MH.8181 and the insured sustained grievous injuries and succumbed injuries and the accident took place, when the policy was in force. It is an admitted fact that the insured Mohammed Mujahid, the owner of the motor cycle was riding the motor cycle along with the pillion rider. Of course, after the accident, the Complainants filed M.V.C. case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court at Bangalore in M.V.C. No.8798/2007 and the claim was allowed against the Insurance Company of the Scorpio vehicle. 10. Now, admittedly the Complainants made a claim before the Opposite party Insurance Company, claiming the repair charges of Rs.27,705/- as per Ex.C.9 and the claim was repudiated by the Opposite party as per the letter Ex.C.1. on the ground that the owner of the motor cycle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 11. The contention of the Complainant is that the deceased owner cum rider of the motor cycle in question was holding a valid driving licence, in spite of it, Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. The Complainants have produced the Xerox copy of the learner licence as per Ex.C.3. It is not disputed by the Opposite parties. Now, question is whether the holding of a learner licence while riding motor cycle on public road at the time of accident amounts to holding of valid driving licence as prescribed by law. 12. In this regard, the learned counsel for the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have relied upon a decision reported in 2001 ACJ 2119 in the case of M.Kuttuppan Vs- K.P.Radha by the Honble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. In that case, it is clearly held relying upon the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, that a learners licence cannot be deemed nor be considered to be a driving licence. The Honble High Court has observed that a person holding a learner licence in order to ride a motor cycle shall fulfill Rule No.3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, wherein such a person shall be accompanied by instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle and further, there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear letter L in red on a white background. Provided that a person while receiving instructions in driving a motor cycle shall not carry any other person on the motor cycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred. 13. In the present case admittedly, the owner of the motor cycle insured with the Opposite party Insurance Company was riding the motor cycle along with a lady as a pillion rider and he was holding only learner licence and not effective driving licence as prescribed under Motor Vehicles Act. There is no evidence that the pillion rider was holding a valid driving licence while riding along with instructor and there was board of L as prescribed under the Rules. 14. Under these circumstances, the Complainants have failed to prove that their son while riding motor cycle insured with the Opposite party Insurance Company was holding effective driving licence to ride a motor cycle. Mere possessing of learner licence produced by the Complainants does not prove the driving of motor cycle with valid driving licence as per law. Therefore, the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are justified in repudiating the claim made by the Complainants and Opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. 15. For the above reasons, the Complainants are not entitled to the motor cycle repair charges or any other insurance as claimed. 16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 1st day of March 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
