KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 494/2009 JUDGMENT DATED:11..06..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Muslim Service Soceity, Tirur Unit, PO Thrikkandiyur, Tirur Taluk, Malappuram District. (R/by its Secretary, P. Mohammed Ali Haji, : APPELLANTS Thrikkandiyur, Tirur-1.) 2. The President, Muslim Service Society, Tirur Unit. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Thazhepalam, Tirur. : RESPONDENT (By Adv:Sri.M.Nizamudeen) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants were the complainants and the respondent was the opposite party in OP.144/04 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in their failure to settle the insurance claim preferred by the complainants with respect to the insured ambulance van bearing registration No:KL10-J-3747. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party/Insurance company contended that the insured vehicle is a transport vehicle and that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having valid driving license with badge to drive the insured vehicle. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A7 documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainants. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:22/06/2009 dismissing the complaint in OP.144/04. Hence the present appeal. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants argued for the position that the insured vehicle was only an ambulance and it cannot be treated as a transport vehicle as defined under Sec.2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the appellants the insured vehicle is a light motor vehicle as defined under Sec.2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act and so the driver was not required any badge or endorsement to drive the insured vehicle. The appellants have also filed a petition to receive photocopy of the driving license issued in the name of Ashikh.M. On the other hand, the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He submitted that the insured vehicle was an ambulance and the same is to be considered as a transport vehicle as defined under Sec.2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also relied on the notification dated:19th June 1992 issued by the Central Government under Sec.41(4) of the MV Act and submitted that the said notification would show that ambulances are included in the category of transport vehicles. Thus, the respondent/opposite party/Insurance company insisted for the requirement of badge or endorsement for the driver to drive the insured ambulance. 4. There is no dispute that the 2nd appellant/2nd complainant is the owner of the insured vehicle bearing Registration No:KL10-J-3747 and that the said insured vehicle (Ambulance) was having an effective insurance policy coverage for the period from 3/12/2002 to 2/12/2003. The opposite party was the insurer of the said ambulance van. Admittedly the insured ambulance van met with an accident during the subsistence of an effective comprehensive insurance policy and in the said accident, insured vehicle sustained damage. The appellant/complainant being the insured of the vehicle submitted the insurance claim for Rs.42,500/-. The said claim was denied by the respondent/opposite party/Insurance company on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid driving license with badge to drive the insured vehicle. 5. Admittedly the insured vehicle is an ambulance van. The policy was also issued insuring the aforesaid ambulance van. The Central Government notification dated:19/6/2002 would make it clear that the ambulances are included in the category of transport vehicles. The table attached to the aforesaid Central Government notification issued under Sec.41(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act would make it abundantly clear that the insured ambulance van is a transport vehicle. So, the case of the appellants/complainants that the insured vehicle is not a transport vehicle cannot be upheld. The Forum below has rightly held that the insured ambulance van is a transport vehicle. 6. There is no dispute that the driver of the insured ambulance van was having only a license to drive light motor vehicle. The appellants/complainants filed photocopy of the driving license of the said driver by name Ashih.M. It would make it clear that the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident was having only license to drive Light Motor Vehicle. He had no badge or necessary endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. There is no dispute that Ashikh.M was the driver of the insured ambulance van at the time of the accident. Sec.3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act would make it clear that “the driver of a transport vehicle requires an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and that the said person (driver) shall drive the transport vehicle with his license specifically entitles him so to do”. So, the requirement of a badge or endorsement to drive transport vehicle cannot be disputed. It can very safely be concluded that the driver of the insured ambulance van was not having the badge or endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. The respondent/opposite party/Insurance company is perfectly justified in not honouring the insurance claim preferred by the appellants/complainants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Lakshmy and Others Vs. E.V.Kumar and Another reported in 2008 ACJ 2034 and also the decision in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.2703/10) reported in CDJ 2010 SC 293. But the facts of the aforesaid reported cases cannot be made applicable in the present case. In those decisions the nature of the accident involving the insured vehicle and the ground urged by the insurance company for repudiating the insurance claim had no nexus. The facts in those cases cannot be made applicable in the present case. On the other hand, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others reported in II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC) and the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Abrar Ahamed Ansari Vs., New India Assurance Company Ltd and Another reported in I (2007) CPJ 288 (NC) that the driver of the insured vehicle is in need of badge or endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. It is also made clear that the driver having only licnese to drive light motor vehicle is not entitled to drive transport vehicle and that the insurance company can very well repudiate the insurance claim if the insured transport vehicle was driven by the driver having only license to drive light motor vehicle. Thus, in all respects the respondent/opposite party/insurance company is perfectly justified in not honouring the insurance claim preferred by the appellants/complainants because of the violation of the policy condition with respect to driving license. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the CDRF, Malappuram in OP.144/04 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
