KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.333/2001 JUDGMENT DATED: 14.2.2008 Appeal filed against the order passed by the CDRF, Kozhikode in OP.324/99 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd., : APPELLANT Branch Office, Kallingal Building, P.B.No.17, Main Road, Vatakara, Represented by the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office No.1, CWC Buildings, LMS Compound, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.M.Nizamudeen) Vs N.K.Kanaran, : RESPONDENT S/o Kannan, Parappil House, P.O.Perambra, Kozhikode. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.324/1999 in the file of CDRF. Kozhikode and the order appealed against is that the appellant/opposite party/Insurance Company is to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest and also a sum of Rs.1500/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is the R.C owner of K.L-11/D 4539 Jeep and that the same may met with an accident on 5.10.97 when it was on motion as the driver lost control of the vehicle and the jeep was completely damaged. A sum of Rs.62480/- towards damages and 25000/- as compensation was claimed. The vehicle had a valid insurance coverage with the opposite party. 3. The opposite party/Insurance Company filed version denying the liability and contending that the vehicle was insured as a passenger carrying vehicle and issued with insurance B Policy. As per the terms of policy the driver should be holding an effective driving licence and as per the Rule 11 of Motor Vehicle Rules the driver should be having a badge. In the instant case the driver was not having the badge and hence the claim was repudiated. 4. The claim was originally allowed by the Forum; and the matter was taken up in the appeal; and as per the order of this Commission on 8.6.2000 the case was remanded as it was found that no evidence at all was adduced. Opportunity was given to the respective parties to adduce evidence. We find that after remand also no oral evidence was adduced; not even proof affidavit was filed. Ext.P1 to P3 and R1 to R3 were marked. The Forum relying on the decision in B.V.Nagaraju vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(1996) 4 SCC 647 held that absence of badge has absolutely no connection whatso ever with the accident and that the repudiation of the claim is unjustified. 5. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant herein. 6. We find that the Forum itself has noted that there was no dispute that the vehicle involved is a commercial vehicle and that the person driving the vehicle was not having a badge although he had a valid driving license. It appears that the contention of the Insurance Company that absence of badge on the part of the driver amounted to violation of policy condition that enabled them to repudiate the claim. The counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions reported in National Insurance Company Vs Kusum Rai, II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC), National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (III)2007 CPJ 13 (SC), Akbar Ahmed Ansari Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. I (2007) CPJ 288 (NC). We find that the above decisions of Supreme Court as well as National Commission are exactly on the point as to whether the driver of a commercial vehicle having license to drive only light motor vehicles amounted to violation of policy conditions and whether the Insurance Company insurer on the above ground is entitled to repudiate the claim. It was held that the absence of authorisation ie. badge to drive commercial vehicle is sufficient to dishonour the liability under the policy. In Laxmi Narayan that case (op.cit) the relevant decisions on the point was reconsidered and it was specifically held that decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh 2004 (3) SCC 297 has no application to cases other than 3rd party claims. In the instant case the facts being undisputed that the driver has not having the license to drive commercial vehicles we find that the above cited decisions are squarely applicable. The decision in Nagarajus case (op.cit) was entirely on a different tact situation. The case of a vehicle driven by a person not competent or authorised to drive that vehicle was not envisaged therein. Even as per the ratio in Nagaraju’s case (Supra) the findings of the Forum cannot be sustained. In the circumstance the findings of the Forum is liable to be set aside; and we do so. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER | 
