IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 282/08 DATED 18-11-2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Bangara Setty.B.T., S/o Late Thippaiah Setty, R/at D.No.259, Hanuman Nilaya, B.M.Road, Kushala Nagara, Madikeri District, Rep. P.A. Holder, Amruth Raj.B., S/o Bangara Setty.B.T.<br /> (By Sri.Ramaraveendra.N., Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Mysore Branch Office, 1st Floor, Mysore Trade Centre, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Mysore-570001.<br /> 2. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., No.28, East Wing, 5th Floor, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, Bangalore-01.<br /> 3. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Registered Office – Reliance Centre, No.19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038.<br /> (By Smt.K.L.Sugandi, Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 09.09.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 30.09.2008<br /> Date of order : 18.11.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 18 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties are, that his vehicle bearing registration No.KA-12-4901, which is a light goods vehicle with unladen weight of 2510 kgs and gross weight of 5950 kgs is insured with the 3rd opposite party and that first opposite party is the branch office. The insurance policy is valid from 12.05.2008 to 11.05.2009. On 11.06.2008 that vehicle met with an accident suffering heavy damage and he made a claim for insurance amount with the opposite parties. The second opposite party inspite of the driver has valid driving license has illegally repudiated the claim with unreasonable ground vide their letter dated 06.07.2008. The ground of repudiation is arbitrary. In spite of issuing a legal notice, the opposite parties have not paid the insurance amount. It is further stated that because of the refusal by opposite parties to pay the insurance amount he is force to pay Rs.250/- per day towards the parking charges, suffered mental tension and he also undergoing loss of Rs.2,000/- per day by way of hiring charges towards the vehicle and thus has prayed for policy amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest on it at 18%, damages for mental agony, hiring charges, parking charges etc., amounting to Rs.4,93,411/-.<br /> 2. The opposite parties have filed their version admitting that the complainant is the owner of the good vehicle referred to by him and having had valid insurance and stated that liability is as per the terms and conditions of the policy, and on driver possessing a valid driving license. That the contention of the para 3 of the complaint are not within their knowledge and further denying to have wrongfully repudiated the claim have stated that the vehicle involved in an accident is a light good vehicle, permit has also been issued to that effect. However, the driver had only license to drive light mother vehicle, which do not cover the goodsvehicle as the concerned authority has not issued a different license to drive goods vehicle. Therefore, further elaborating that the driver of the complainant did not have a valid driving license to drive a goods vehicle have justified their action in repudiating the claim have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the power of attorney holder of the complainant namely Amruth Raj has filed his affidavit evidence and one Chandrashekar for opposite parties has filed his affidavit evidence. Both these witnesses have reproduced what they have stated in their complaint and version respectively in their affidavit. The complainant has produced Xerox copies of the RC, driving license and representation letter issued by the opposite parties. Besides certain copies of the crime investigation papers. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. The counsel for the opposite parties has also filed her written arguments. <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that this driver had valid driving license to drive the goods vehicle?<br /> 2. Whether he further proves that the opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service by repudiating his claim?<br /> 3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 and 2:- Certain undisputed facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the RC owner of a goods vehicle had valid insurance as on the date of accident that is 11.06.2008 and that vehicle was being driven by the driver one Manju.<br /> 7. The claim of the complainant that the vehicle which met with an accident suffered extensive damage has not been controverted by the opposite parties. But, the opposite parties have turned down the claim of the complainant by issuing a repudiation letter on the ground that the driver of the complainant who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident had driving license only to drive a light motor vehicle and therefore he was not permitted to drive the goods vehicle, as such stated that the complainant has violated the terms of the policy and therefore they are not liable to pay the insurance amount.<br /> 8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant in the course of arguments conceding the fact that the driver of the vehicle had driving license to drive a light motor vehicle, but further contended that the driver was having a valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle and the vehicle, which met with an accident though a goods vehicle in fact that it is a light goods vehicle with unladen weight of 2510 kgs and gross weight of 5950 kgs and submitted that the license possessed by the driver was a valid one and therefore driving the goods vehicle by the driver cannot be construed as violation of the terms of the insurance. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant further elaborating his arguments and invited our attention to the definition of the word Light Motor Vehicle as defined under section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act. In this definition, the light motor vehicle has been defined as “a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms”. The counsel argued that the transport vehicle of the complainant which unladden weight is less than 7500 kgs is a light motor vehicle and thus the license of the driver was valid. He also invited our attention to the definition of the word Transport Vehicle as defined under section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which defines “as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle”, The counsel canvassed that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties is not justified and in support of his arguments he relied on a decision reported in ILR 1996 Kar. Page 2220 between United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Smt.Laxmamma and others.<br /> 9. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the driving license possessed by the driver was not an effective one as the holder of license to drive light motor vehicle is not authorized to drive the transport vehicle. The driver as on the date of the accident though was driving a light motor vehicle, but it was a transport vehicle and there was no authorization by the licensing authority authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle and that has resulted in violation of terms of the policy and thus justified the action of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim and in support of her arguments relied upon decisions reported in I (2007) CPJ 23 NC, IV (2007) CPJ 438 Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigar, III (2008) TAC Madras 679, and few other decisions.<br /> 10. The counsel representing the complainant further inviting our attention to the definition of light motor vehicle under section 2 (21) transport vehicle as defined under section 2(41) and goods carriage as defined under sub section 2(14) argued that light motor vehicle as defined under the act is inclusive of transport vehicle, and transport vehicle is inclusive of a goods carriage and further referring to the definition of light motor vehicle, submitted that a vehicle, which does not exceed 7500 kgs with unladen weight is a light motor vehicle and stated that the vehicle of the complainant whose unladen weight was not exceeding 7500 kgs, but was only 5950 kgs as such the driving license possessed by the driver of the complainant was valid and he could have driven a goods vehicle, which unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs. Whereas, the counsel for the opposite parties though concurred that light motor vehicle defined under the act is inclusive of a transport vehicle, which unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs, but stated that in order to drive a goods vehicle or a transport vehicle, whose unladden weight is less than 7500 kg, the driver must have been specifically authorized to drive the same and in the absence of such authorization the driver was not entitle to drive a transport vehicle. True, light motor vehicle as defined in the act is a vehicle, whose unladen weight must be less than 7500 kgs. This definition in our view is given for the purpose of distinguishing whether a particular vehicle is a light motor vehicle or a heavy motor vehicle and only for the limited purpose we should understand the meaning of the light motor vehicle. But, the light motor vehicle may be a motor cab, a goods carrier or a vehicle used by the owner for his personal use. Therefore, in order to drive these types of vehicle, the licensing authority issues license accordingly. If a licensing authority has issued a license to drive a light motor vehicle that means he can drive a light motor vehicle of his personal use, but in order to drive a goods vehicle or transport vehicle like passengers vehicle, the driver in our view should be specifically authorized to drive such vehicles. In the absence of which the driver cannot make use of the license issued to drive a light motor vehicle to drive a goods vehicle or a passengers, vehicle even if its unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs. <br /> 11. In the case on hand even as could be found from the license issued to the driver of this case, he has been given license to drive a light motor vehicle. In the license, it is further shown a motor vehicle of the specified description, and further detailed that the license is given to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle and that license is valid from 08.01.2007 to 07.01.2027. Thus it is clear from the conditions of license issued to the driver he has been given license to drive light motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle. Transport vehicle as already stated by us is defined under the act as a public service vehicle, a goods carriage etc., etc., Thus, the license had by the driver of this complainant was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle. Admittedly the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle, which is a transport vehicle, which could not have been driven by this driver as he was not authorized to do so. Besides this, we do not find any endorsement on this driving license authorizing the driver to drive the transport vehicle. In this regard, the decision of the Madras Hight Court relied upon by the counsel for the opposite parties holds good and we also in this regard rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (4) CPR page 144 between New India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Prabhulal, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:<br /> “The license was in respect of a motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle and driver was no authorized to drive a transport vehicle insurance company not liable to pay compensation”<br /> 12. By relaying upon these decisions we are constrained to hold that the driver of the complainant was not authorized to drive the goods vehicle as such, the opposite parties are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. In the result, we answer point no.1 and 2 in the negative and hold that there are no merits in the complaint and same is liable to be dismissed. <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 18th November 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />