Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Jadhav
Opponent through Lrd Adv. Smt. Joshi
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(15/02/2014)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the opponent
Insurance Company under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection
Act, for deficiency in service. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Ramwadi, Pune. He is dealing in the business and the opponent is insurance company. The complainant had purchased one Innova car for his personal use. The number of car is MH-12, DY – 1469. The said car is insured with the opponent for the period of 27/9/2008 to 26/9/2009. The complainant has appointed driver named as Aktar Nasaruddin Shaikh on the said vehicle. On 17/5/2009 at about 10.15 am, the driver was driving the car towards Yerwada from Ramwadi, when he reached to Shastri Nagar Chowk, one Auto Rikshaw bearing no. MH-12, EF-5012 came from Yerwada side and took suddenly turn towards Kalyani Nagar. The driver indicated him and blowed horn, but the Rikshaw driver did not take any care of the said indication. The driver of the complainant in order save the Auto Rikshaw took turn towards left side of the road and the Rikshaw could not control and the accident took place. During the course of accident the Innova car got fully damaged. The incidence was informed to the police. The police prepared panchnama and lodged FIR. This incidence also informed to the opponent on the same day. The complainant has produced the bills of repair charges and other relevant documents. The bill of total damages was Rs. 3,68,732/-. The complainant has prayed for settlement of this claim but the same was repudiated by the opponent on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid licence at the time of accident. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant against the opponent. The complainant has asked the
bill of repair charges to the tune of Rs. 3,68,732/-, expenses for notice charges and other miscellaneous charges to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation for mental and physical agony to the tune of Rs.21,268/-. The total claim of the complainant is Rs. 4,00,000/-.
2] The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version, in which it has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is the case of the opponent that the car in dispute was insured with them for the period of 27/9/2008 to 26/9/2009. The complainant has committed breach of condition of the policy, as at the time accident the driver of the complainant Mr. Shaikh was not holding valid license. One Mr. Prashant Pujari had carried out the survey as regards accident and found the assessment of damages of Rs.99,495/- It was also disclosed during the course of survey that the driving license, which was produced by the complainant was not valid at the time of accident, as the driver was holding the license of State of Nagaland and that was valid up to 5/4/2008. The alleged accident took place on 17/5/2009. Then, another duplicate license was produced in the name of Mr. Akhtar Shaikh, which was issued by State of Maharashtra on 6/4/2005. It appears from the same that the said license was valid for driving non-transport vehicle up to 9/7/2029 and for driving the transport vehicle up to 5/7/2012. As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, license for driving non-transport vehicle can be issued for 20 years and for driving transport vehicle 3 years. However, it appears from the said license that the license for 24 years has been issued for driving non-transport vehicle and 7 years for driving transport vehicle to Mr. Akhtar Shaikh. It is the case of the opponent that the said license is invalid and against the provisions of law. As the complainant has committed breach of conditions of the policy, hence he is not entitled for any claim from the insurance company. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After considering pleadings of both the parties and scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum and hearing the arguments of both the counsels, the following points arise for determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant? | In the affirmative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
4] The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the vehicle, which is involved in the accident, is bearing registration no. MH-12, DY-1469 is belonging to the complainant and it was insured with the opponent for the period of 27/9/2008 to 26/9/2009. This fact is substantiated by the documents, which are produced by both the parties. Surveyor report is produced by the opponent along with the copies of license, which were produced by the complainant. It is not in dispute that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company only on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid license at the time of accident. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued that the complainant has proved its case, it has produced the license, which is showing that on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle was holding valid license. The complainant has also intimated the accident to police station as well as insurance company on the same day and there was no negligence on the part of the complainant, as regards validity of the insurance policy, there is no dispute between the parties. The learned Advocate for the opponent argued before the Forum that, as the complainant has willfully committed breach of condition of the policy, he is not entitled for any damage claim. He placed reliance upon the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S Davinder Singh” in Civil Appeal No. 4883 of 2007. In this ruling it has been observed that when there is willful breach of condition of policy, which is going to the nexus of the accident, then claimant is not entitled for accident claim amount.
5] On carefully scrutiny of the license, which are produced by the complainant, it reveals that the license, which is issued to the driver of the complainant by Nagaland and Manipur authority was for the period of 6/4/2005 to 5/4/2008. The alleged accident took place on 17/5/2009 and it is needless to say that the license issued by the Nagaland authority was not in existence. The another license, on which the complainant is relied upon is disclosing that the license for non-transport vehicle was issued on 6/4/2005 and that has been shown valid up to 9/7/2029 and license for transport vehicle has been shown as for the period of 6/4/2005 to 9/7/2012.
6] As per section 14 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the period of renewal of the license for transport vehicle is 3 years and in the case of any other license, if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal ; or until the date on which such person attains the age fifty years, whichever is earlier. It reveals from the license, which is produced by the complainant before Insurance company that the date of birth of the driver Mr. Akhtar Shaikh is 16/1/1982. The vehicle, which was driven by him on the date of accident, was non transport vehicle. Then, his license is valid up to 50 years. As per the provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the license should be expired on 5/4/2025, but it has been shown that it is valid up to 9/7/2029. Then prima-facie it appears that the said license is not issued after considering provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and it is invalid. The Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. In the light of the above discussion, the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for insurance claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Under these circumstances, the Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with
no order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 15/02/2014
