KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.270/04 JUDGMENT DAED 28.4.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Thalassery, reptd by its Deputy Manager, -- APPELLANT Regional Office, M.G.Road, Ernakulam. (By Adv.George Cherian) Vs. K.Purushu, Mudathiyullathil House, -- RESPONDENT P.O,Thuvakkunnu, Thalassery. (By Adv.M.V.Hareendran) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 23rd June 2003 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP.145/2000. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd; in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the complainant with respect to his insured vehicle bearing registration No.KL 13 C 9712. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version and justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim. They contended that the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident had no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle involved in the accident and so the Insurance Company is not having any liability to indemnify the insured because of the violation of the policy condition. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the witness from the side of the opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.P1 to P5 and R1to R6 were also marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay the insurance amount of Rs,37050/- being the insurance claim amount assessed by the approved surveyor. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party New India Assurance Company in repudiating the insurance claim put forward by the respondent/complainant with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. KL 13 C 9712 ? 2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.37050/- by way of the insurance claim amount? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.6.03 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP.145/2000? 4. POINTS 1 TO 3:- There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is the owner of the Jeep bearing registration No.KL 13 C 9712 and that the same was insured with the appellant/opposite party Insurance Company. The said policy was valid from 20.9.98 to 19.9.99. During the validity of the said policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 14.8.99 and sustained damage. The complainant being the insured of the vehicle preferred the claim to get the loss indemnified. The opposite party repudiated the insurance claim on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. 5. Admittedly the insured vehicle was a transport vehicle. It is admitted that the insured vehicle was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. There can be no doubt that the insured vehicle was a transport vehicle as defined under Section 2 (47) of the M.V.Act. It is a well settled position that the driver of the transport vehicle must have the badge or endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. There is no dispute that at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle was driven by the driver by name P.P.Maheshan. The complainant as PW1 has admitted that fact. Ext.P5 is the driving license in the name of the said driver Maheshan. A perusal of P5 driving license would show that the same was for driving a light motor vehicle. Admittedly, there was no endorsement in P5 driving license to drive a transport vehicle or a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. There is no dispute that the insured vehicle was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle namely, a taxi Jeep. If that be so, the driver was in need of a driving license with necessary endorsement as envisaged under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So, the appellant/opposite party Insurance Company is perfectly justified in repudiating the insurance claim as there was violation of the policy condition with respect to the driving license. 6. It is held by the Hon.Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhulal (Civil A.No.5539/07) decided on 30/12/07 that clause 14, 21, 28 and 47 of Section 2 of M.V.Act make it clear that if a vehicle is LMV, it falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving license is to be endorsed under section 3 of the M.V.Act. The aforesaid proposition has been further confirmed by the Hon.Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd, V.S.Kusum Rai & Ors. Reported in (2006) 4 SCC 250. The Forum below cannot be justified in ignoring the settled position and allowing the insurance claim of the complainant. So, the impugned order passed by the forum below is liable to be quashed. Hence we do so. If that be so, the complaint in OP.145/2000 is also liable to be dismissed. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the forum below is set aside. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER s/L | 
