F.A.No.1051 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.No.46 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM NALGONDA

Between:
 B.Venkateshwarlu S/o Lakshmaiah,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Business,

R/o Kandibanda Village of Mellacheruvu Mandal,
Nalgonda District

                                                        Appellant/complainant

                A N D

1)    The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Bajaj Allianz General

Insurance Company Limited, Peejay Plaza, D.No.10-1-44/9,

III Floor, VIP Road, CBM Compound, Vishakhapatnam-530016.

2)    The Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Limited, Corporate Office, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarwada,

Pune-411 006, Maharashtra.

                                                                                                Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant             Sri M.Ramgopal Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents                Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy

        QUORUM:   HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT  
                              SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

                                TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member

                                        ***

1.     The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum has dismissed the complaint opining that the rider of the vehicle was not holding effective driving license at the time of accident.  For the sake of convenience and felicity of expression, the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint.

2.     The complainant had  purchased  the  vehicle  Bajaj Platina  BS II  at  Venkataramana   Automobiles, Nalgonda and got registered it with Registration No.AP-24-R-4045.   On 7-11-2007 the complainant insured  the vehicle with  Opposite Party  No.1 for the period  from 7-11-2007 to 6-11-2008.  The insurance policy covers own damage, personal accident and third party damages to the vehicle.  On 26.2.2008 the complainant gave his vehicle to his   friend namely Pulimoru Janaki Reddy who went to Kodad Town riding on the vehicle on his personal work.  While his friend was driving the vehicle on left side of the road towards Khammam Cross Roads at Government Hospital near road divider at that time at 10-30 p.m., a lorry bearing number AP-07-Y-2966 which was going from Hyderabad to Vijayawada came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the rear side of the Bajaj Platina and caused the death of the said Janaki Reddy and heavy damages to the vehicle. 

3.     The complainant had taken  the vehicle to Venkataramana Automobiles, Bajaj Authorized Dealer and Services at Kodad and got it repaired and incurred expenditure of `28,903/-.  The complainant informed the same to the opposite party and the surveyors had estimated the same.  But the damages claimed by the complainant was rejected by Opposite Party No.1 for the reason that rider of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident.     The complainant issued notice dated 24.8.2007 to the opposite parties. P.Janaki Reddy had a valid Light Motor Vehicle Driving License at the time of accident.   Light Motor Vehicle means “a transport vehicle or omni bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kolograms.  It is also amended as 6000 kilograms as per the M.V.Act, 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994 where the Bajaj Platina has only 103 unladen weight and it is a two wheeler.  Hence, the repudiation is illegal as per the provisions of the M.V.Act. 

4.     The Opposite Parties resisted the case contending that that the motorcycle Bajaj Platina was insured with them under Policy No.OG 08-1801-1802-00039561 valid from 7-11-2007 to 6-11-2008 under the category of Two Wheeler Package Policy in the name of B.Venkateshwarlu subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.  As per claim petition and police records filed by the complainant, at the time of accident one P.Janaki Reddy who is friend of complainant was driving the said motorcycle and he died in the road accident caused by the Lorry bearing No.AP-07-Y-2966, the motorcycle was also damaged in the said accident.  After receiving the intimation about accident in claim they had appointed Mr.D.Brahmaiah R/o Kodad of Nalgonda District who is an independent IRDA approved surveyor to assess the damages of the motorcycle. The Surveyor in his report assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,350/- the admissibility of which is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  He also mentioned in his report that the rider of the motorcycle held a driving license authorizing him to drive only LMV(NT). 

5.     The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the motorcycle was being ridden at the time of accident by P.Janaki Reddy whose driving license only authorized him to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport) but did not authorize him to ride a motorcycle which is a violation of policy terms and conditions and also against Section-3 of Motor Vehicles Act.  The claim petition is not maintainable because the owner and insurer of the crime Lorry bearing No.AP-07-Y-2966 had not been impleaded as the lorry was cause of the accident and the Complainant is also preparing to file another case against owner and insurer of the said lorry for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act.  They had been given notice to submit the original Registration Certificate of the said motorcycle and original driving license of P.Janaki Reddy before the Forum as they are in the custody of complainant.  The forum has no jurisdiction because the offices of insurers are located at Visakapatnam and Pune.  Hence, the opposite parts prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                                       

6.     The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A-1 to A-8 and two other State Commissions decisions for consideration.  On behalf of the Opposite Parties Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked.

7.     Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed the appeal contending that the rider of the motor cycle was a friend of the complainant and he believed in his friend possessing valid driving license to drive the motor cycle and that the decisions referred to, by the District Forum are not applicable to the facts of the case.

8.     The point for consideration is whether the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?

9.     The complainant had obtained insurance coverage for his motor cycle as also personal accident and third party risk coverage by virtue of insurance policy for the period commencing 7.11.2007 to 6.11.2008.  The complainant’s friend on 22.6.2008 the complainant’s friend Pulimoru Janaki Reddy who was a car driver by profession had taken the complainant’s motor cycle and was proceeding towards Khammam Cross roads and then a lorry bearing Registration No. AP 07-Y 2966 proceeding from Hyderabad to Vijayawada and driven in rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed the motor cycle from behind at Government Hospital Khammam at 10.30 p.m. and the rider of the motor cycle died at the spot and also damage was caused to the motor cycle. 

10.    The learned counsel for the complainant contends that he had incurred a sum of Rs.28,903/- for repair of the vehicle and the surveyor deputed by the opposite party company had estimated the same amount and he submits that repudiation of his claim is not on valid grounds since the rider of the motor cycle held valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle.   The learned counsel for the opposite party insurance company has supported the impugned order contending that the rider of the motor cycle was authorized to drive LMV and not the motor cycle in question.

11.    Before we dwell on the aspect of effective and valid driving license vis-à-vis the vehicle in question, it is essential to referred to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act which mandates every person to possess an effective driving license authorizing him to drive the vehicle.  In terms of  Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act every person driving a vehicle at public place should have an effective driving license to drive such vehicle.   There is no dispute that the rider of the motor cycle which is insured by the opposite party insurance company held a driving license.  The driving license was to the effect of authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle.  The motor cycle cannot be considered as light motor vehicle. 

12.    The word “effective” in Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act indicates the driving license authorizing the driver to drive a particular class of vehicle and it includes in its ambit all types of driving license.  The classification of vehicles has much significance in the light of their weight, usage, purpose of usage etc., and a driver  who has been issued driving license authorizing him to drive a specific class of vehicle cannot contend that in view of the driving license he is authorized to drive any class or type of vehicle such driver can only drive the vehicle in terms of the driving license. 

13.    The terms of the insurance policy provide for payment of the amount to the complainant on account of damage caused to the motor cycle provided the complainant has not violated any of conditions incorporated in the insurance policy.  The driving license issued in favour of the deceased friend of the complainant was to the effect of authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle.  The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in “National Insurance Company Vs Penmmadi Lakshmi and others” reported in 2008 ALD 192 that the motor cycle does not answer description of a transport vehicle or a light motor vehicle as defined under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. 

14.    The deceased was having valid and effective driving license to drive a light motor vehicle and not the motor cycle in question.  The driving license authorizing the deceased to drive the car would not ipso facto entitle him to drive any other type of vehicle.  In the absence of the license authorizing him to drive the motor cycle, the deceased P.Janaki Reddy albeit the complainant had violated the terms of the insurance policy consequent to which the opposite party insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability in regard to the damage sustained by the motor cycle in the accident that occurred while the deceased friend of the complainant was riding on it.  The order under appeal does not suffer from misappreciation of either facts or law and the complainant failed to show any circumstance warranting our interference with the findings recorded by the District Forum in regard to the violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the appellant herein.

15.    In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The order of the District Forum is confirmed.  In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                 MEMBMER

                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                 MEMBER

                                                              Dt.09.09.2011

KMK*