KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 745/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 01.04.2019
(Against the Order in C.C. 228/2013 of CDRF, Kasaragod)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The Branch Manager, Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., 5th Floor, Sky Tower, Bank Road, Calicut-673 001.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Muhammed Aslam. T.P, Edakkavil, Karumbuvalappil, Fathima Badh, Kottappuram P.O, Nileshwar, Kasaragod-671 341.
JUDGMENT
SRI. RANJIT. R: MEMBER
Opposite party has filed this appeal against the Order dated 18.08.2016 in C.C. No. 228/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, in short the district forum by which the forum directed them to pay Rs. 1,06,520/- with 10% interest and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs.
2. Case of the complainant is that complainant is the RC owner of Maruti Swift car bearing No. KL 60-E 1528 and he purchased the same on 19.06.2012 and it has insurance valid from 18.06.2012 to 17.06.2013. On 31.01.2013 the complainant had given the vehicle to his paternal uncle Abdulrahman for going to Mangalore Hospital and while returning from Mangalore at a place called Manjeshwar he met with an accident and due to the accident the back side of the car completely damaged and the same is intimated to the Popular Vehicle and Services Ltd and also the insurance company, the opposite party. The opposite party asked the complainant to shift the car to the Popular Services Ltd., and get it repaired from the above service centre and thereafter the complainant submitted claim form to opposite party through the service centre and the opposite party answered that the claim will be adjusted towards the spare parts and service charges. Even though complainant submitted the claim form and relevant documents to opposite party through service centre the opposite party failed to pay the amount either to the service centre or to the complainant. Since they failed to make payment complainant was constrained to take delivery after paying Rs. 1,01,966/- towards repair charges including the cost of spare parts. Thereafter the opposite party sent a registered notice to complainant dated 30.03.2013 stating that the claim is rejected due to the non-renewal of the driving license of the driver of car at the time of accident. The license of the said Abdulrahman expired on 23.01.2013 and the accident occurred on 31.01.2013 within one month from the expiry period and due to oversight he could not renew in time and the same is renewed on 06.04.2013 and he is not disqualified from holding valid license. The repudiation of the claim by opposite party is deficiency in service and thereby the complainant suffered much and hence he filed the complaint before the district forum.
3. Opposite party filed version contending that the investigation conducted by them revealed that the driver of the vehicle Abdul Rahman. E.K was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and the complainant knowing that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid license to drive the above said vehicle permitted him to drive the same thereby violated the conditions of the Motor Vehicle Act as it is a breach of policy conditions and he is not entitled to claim damages as such the opposite party is not liable to indemnify the damage sustained to complainant and it is further contended that the amount assessed is not correct and the damage is to be assessed by an IRDA licenced independent surveyor. It further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the side of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Evidence in the case consists of oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 series marked on his side. Opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side.
5. The lower forum on the basis of the materials produced, found that the accident occurred within 30 days of expiry of the license and as per Sec. 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act the license of the driver who had driven the vehicle at the time of accident is valid and effective. Hence repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the insurance company is not justifiable. The forum also found that the complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs. 1,06,520/- which is assessed by the surveyor as per Ext. B2 survey report. The forum on the basis of these findings passed the impugned order.
6. Heard both parties.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vehicle was driven by a person who was not in a possession of valid driving license which is a major violation of policy conditions. The forum below while passing the impugned order considered only Sec. 14 of the Motor Vehicle Act, but they failed to consider Sec. 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act which says that if the renewal is not done within the grace period, the validity will be effective only from the date when it is renewed and in the light of Sec. 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid license as the same was renewed after 30 days from the expiry date.
8. The short question to be decided is whether repudiation of claim by insurance company is justifiable or not. The stand of the appellant is that the claim preferred by the claimant had to be repudiated as the driver was not holding valid effective driving license to drive the motor vehicle at the time of accident, which is a breach of policy condition. Driver’s clause in the policy condition states that “Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989”. The above said condition contemplates that apart from the insured, any person authorized by the insured could also drive the vehicle provided that the person driving the vehicle holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license.
9. Admittedly the license of the driver at the time of accident had expired on 23.01.2013 and the accident occurred on 31.01.2013 and that the driver renewed the license only on 06.04.2013. Sec. 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act states that “Provided that every driving license shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this subsection continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry”.
10. Admittedly the driver has not applied for renewal of license within 30 days of the date of its expiry. The driving license was renewed only on 06.04.2013. Whereas Sec. 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act states that “renewal of driving license (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving license issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. Provided that in any case where the application for renewal of a license is made more than 30 days after the date of expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal”.
11. From the reading of this section it is clear that the application for renewal of license if made within 30 days of the date of expiry, the license continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of expiry. Whereas when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of expiry proviso to Sub Section (1) of Sec. 15 of the Act gets attracted and the license is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal which means that between the date of expiry of the license and the date of its renewal there is no effective license in existence.
12. From the above it can be seen that the driver at the time of accident (on 31.01.2013) was not having a valid license, since the license expired on 23.01.2013 was renewed only on 06.04.2013. This itself is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions in the insurance contract and hence repudiation of the claim by the insurance company is justifiable.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal reported in IV (2009) CPJ 14 (SC) wherein the facts of the case is similar to that of the present case, the apex court found that the driver was not having an effective valid license on the date of the accident as the license was renewed after 30 days from the date of expiry. The renewal of license when applied after more than 30 days, the license is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal and hence the driver has no valid license on the date of accident and the repudiation of claim by the insurance company is justifiable. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Karnail Singh Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & anr. reported in II (2010) CPJ 104 (NC), in which the dictum of the aforesaid apex court decision was applied. The lower forum without appreciating the above facts allowed the complaint which is unsustainable under the eye of law. In view of the findings as above , other aspects raised in the case do not arise for consideration.
14. In the light of the above discussions we hold that the repudiation of the claim by the appellant/insurance company is fully justifiable and hence we hold that the order of the lower forum is to be set aside and consequently the complaint is to be dismissed. We do so.
In the result, appeal is allowed. The order passed by the district forum is set aside. Consumer Complaint No. 228/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod stands dismissed.
Release the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant, to the appellant on its application.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
