BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD
F.A.No.362 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.49 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM KHAMMAM
Between
Iffco-Tokyo General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Manager, 4thLoniyaTowers, D.No.40-9/1-12,
Opp.Nirmala Convent, Vijayawada-002
D.Vijay Rao, S/o.Deva Raju,
age: Major, Occu: owner of auto bearing
No. AP-20-W-8875,
R/o.Thodithalagudem Village,
Karepalli Mandal,
Khammam District.
Counsel for the appellant
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
MONDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
1.
2. `1,00,000/- which was rejected by the appellant.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
8.
9.
10. `12,461/- and deducted the amount of Rs.500/- towards policy excess and`1,961/- towards salvage value, therefrom and assessed the net loss at`10,000/-.
11.
“In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.
12.
In the matter of Nasir Ahmed (SLP No. 7618 of 2005), the vehicle was a luxury taxi passenger carrying commercial vehicle. There also the driving licence issued in favour of the driver was to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and hence the driver could not have driven the vehicle in question. In that case too, the licence was renewed for a period of twenty years i.e. from February 5, 2000 to February 4, 2020. Again, there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act. A specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company but the Authorities held the Insurance Company liable which could not have been done. The reasoning and conclusion arrived at by us in the matter of Prabhu Lal (SLP No. 7370 of 2004) would apply to the case of Nasir Ahmed. That appeal is, therefore, allowed.
In Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No. 17794 of 2004), the vehicle involved in accident was a Jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and in view of the fact that the driver was holding licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the vehicle in question. For the reasons recorded hereinabove in the main matter of Prabhu Lal i.e. SLP(C) No. 7370 of 2004, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable and that appeal also deserves to be allowed.
13.
14.
KMK*
