KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 178/2000 JUDGMENT DATED.28.12.2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance co.Ltd., Divisional Office, Shan Complex, Door No.6/990-B, -- APPELLANT Mattancherry, Cochin – 682002. (Adv.M.G.K.Menon) Vs. Joseph Shine K.X., Kalathil House, -- RESPONDENT Gothuruth.P.O., North Parur. (By Adv.Kuriakose Peter) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the common order dated.11th November 1999 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.N.63/99. The complaint in the said OP.63/99 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming the insurance amount in respect of the insured vehicle owned by the complainant. The insurance claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was violation of the policy condition by permitting a person to driver the vehicle without valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. But, the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant to a certain extent and thereby the impugned order was passed directing the opposite party to pay the insurance claim after considering the claim submitted by the complainant/insured. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the opposite party in the said OP.63/99. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party argued this appeal on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He has also pointed out the violation of the policy condition by relying on provisions of Sections 3(1), 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Thus, the appellant/Insurance company justified its action in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the respondent/complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and the conclusions of the lower forum and requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the appellant/opposite party can be justified in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the respondent/complainant as insured of the vehicle covered by the policy of insurance issued by the appellant/opposite party/Insurance company? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP.63/ 99? 4. POINTS 1 AND 2 We will refer the parties according to their status before the lower forum in OP.63/99. 5. There is no dispute that the complainant had insured his vehicle with the opposite party/Insurance company with a comprehensive policy of Insurance, that the said insurance policy was valid for the period from 5.1.98 to 4.1.99 and that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 19.4.98. It is also an admitted fact that in the said accident the insured vehicle sustained damages. Thereby, the complainant as insured submitted the claim form demanding the insurance claim with respect to the damaged insured vehicle. But, the opposite party/Insurance Company repudiated the aforesaid claim on the sole ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license. Thus, the claim was repudiated on the ground of violation of the policy condition. 6. It is true, that in the policy of Insurance there was a specific clause regarding driving license. 7. The aforesaid drivers clause reads as follows:- Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive:- Any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving license to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder, at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that a person holding an effective and valid Learner’s License to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder may also drive the vehicle when not used for transport of goods at the time of accident and that the person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989. 8. There can be no doubt that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having an effective driving license at the time of the accident. It is admitted that the driving license had expired on 28.2.98; and the same was renewed only on 24.4.98. Thus, at the time of the accident the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. 9. It is come out in evidence that the particular driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident had taken the driving license 18 years before the accident and that he was having experience in driving the vehicle for more than 18 years on the date of the accident. There is no case for the opposite party that the accident occurred on account of the lack of driving experience on the part of the driver of the vehicle or that there was any sort of negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle. There was only a failure on the part of the driver of the vehicle to get his driving license renewed. So, the lower forum was of the view that mere failure on the part of the driver to get his driving license renewed cannot be taken as a valid ground to repudiate the insurance claim put forward by the insured. 10. The lower forum has relied on the principle laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court in Nagaraju’s case. It would make it clear that there must be some nexus between cause of the accident and the violation of the policy condition. In the aforesaid case it was held that the violation of the policy condition had nothing to do with the causing of the accident that the mere fact that there occurred violation of the policy condition cannot be taken as a ground to repudiate the claim put forward by the insured. The lower forum has rightly relied on the ratio in the aforesaid Supreme Court decision in Nagaraju’s case. This State Commission had an occasion to consider the principle laid down in the said decision while pronouncing judgment in Appeal case No.449/98. Thus, the lower forum has not committed any error in relying on the principles laid down in Nagaraju’s case and also the decision rendered by this State Commission in A.No.449/98. The lower forum has considered all the relevant aspect of the case regarding the violation of the policy condition and rightly come to a just and proper conclusion that there was no nexus between the accident and the violation of the policy condition. That be so, the impugned order passed by the lower forum directing the opposite party/Insurance Company to consider the insurance claim of the complainant in its correct perspective is to be up held. This Commission is of the view that there is no sustainable ground warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP.63/98. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER s/L | 
