BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                      : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 40/2015 Filed on 12.02.2015

ORDER DATED: 09.04.2021

Complainant:

Shamnad.A, Shameen Manzil, 7/677, 13/107, Padiyani, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram - 13

                                                             (By Adv. C.S.Rajmohan)

Opposite party:

1. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, Thiruvananthapuram Branch, Trans Tower, Vazhuthacud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Prasannakumar Nair)

2. Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, 2^nd Floor, KP Vallon Road, Kadavanthara, Kochi - 682 020

This case having been heard on 01/02/21, The Commission delivered the order on 09/04/2021.

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant is the registered owner of Nippon Toyoto Etios GD car with Register No KL 01 BK 1406.  Complainant purchased the said car to earn his livelihood by ply it as taxi.  The car is running as taxi for INVEST NEST a private company.  The vehicle was insured properly with the opposite parties.  The vehicle while traveling back from Peringamala to Thiruvananthapuram after alighting passenger met with an accident and the vehicle was severally damaged.  The vehicle was plied by one Suneesh.M the driver of the complainant AGD certificate was issued by the Traffic Police.  The accident occurred on 20/05/2014 at about 2.00 AM near Karakkamandapam.  The complainant immediately informed the matter to the opposite parties and vehicle was towed to Authorized Service Centre of Nippon Toyoto.  After examination a detailed bill was given for an amount of Rs.2,93,000/-.  The opposite parties were informed to settle the claim with Nippon Toyoto as complainant is having a valid insurance claim.  But to utter shock of complainant, the genuine claimed was rejected on the ground that complaints driver is not having a valid driving license to drive LMV.  It is pertinent to note that the driver of the complainant is having valid driving license.  The driver of the vehicle is holding a valid driving license during accident.  Even though the drivers are not having badge during the time of accident opposite parties are liable to be disburse the amount in non standard basis.  Without considering the above fact the repudiating of the claim is not justifiable.  Act of opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Complainant was bound to rectify the defects in the vehicle by paying an amount of Rs.2,93,000/- to the Nippon Toyoto.  The denial of issuance claim to the complainant is illegal and arbitrary.  Hence the complaint.

1^st & 2^nd opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Without admitting the liability, opposite parties acknowledges the existence of insurance coverage as per policy No.2203542338000090 to the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-01-BK-1406 which is valid from 14/02/2014 to 13/02/2015 and the liability if any of this respondent, is restricted to the terms, conditions and limitation of the insurance policy.  It is true that the claim purported to be covered under the policy was reported to us.  Immediately on receipt of the claim form, a Surveyor was appointed by the Company and necessary survey and inspections of the damaged vehicle were conducted in this regard.  The IRDA surveyor viz. Vinod Venugopal had assessed the loss at Rs.1,26,401/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  While processing the claim it was observed that Mr.Suneesh.M who was driving the vehicle at the material time did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive transport vehicle.  The complainant was possessing effective driving license to drive only light motor vehicle, and as such he should not have plied the transport vehicle in the absence of necessary endorsement as required by law and the same is a clear breach of policy conditions.  The vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and hence it should not have been plied by the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite party contended that the absence of valid license to drive the vehicle the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the opposite parties and no direction can be issued against the company to pay compensation to complainant.  As per section 2 clause 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 “Driving License” means the license issued by a competent authority under chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than an a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description; as per section 2 clause 47, “Transport Vehicle” means a public service, a goods carriage, an educational bus or private service vehicle.  As per section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, requires holding of driving license which is material and reads thus: “3.Necessity for driving license (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do”.  Further Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes the form in which driving license is issued.  The form provides that the holder of a license can drive any vehicle of the description mentioned therein.  When authorization is granted to drive transport vehicle, it is expressly so provided by making an endorsement to that effect. 

Opposite parties stated that the vehicle of complainant which met with an accident was a “transport Vehicle”.  The vehicle was driven by Mr.Suneesh.M, who was authorized to drive only light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle as on the date of accident on 20/05/2014.  The opposite party contended that his driving license to drive transport vehicle expired on 29/12/2013 and that the same was renewed only from 23/06/2014 which is almost after 6 months from the date of expiry.  Since the 1^st opposite party had no license to that effect, he should not have driven the vehicle and when the vehicle met with an accident, opposite parties is not liable to pay any compensation.  From the vehicular records produced by the complainant, it is clearly revealed that the same was transport vehicle.  Hence referring to the various provision of the Motor vehicles Act, it is respectfully submitted that if a person is having license to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do (section 3).  Further Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is “light motor vehicle” but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving license has to be duly endorsed under section 3 of the Act.  If it is not done, a person holding driving license to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle.  Opposite parties intimated to the complainant on 16/06/2014 that the claim is not admissible.  Hence the file was closed as NO CLAIM.  There was no deficiency on the part of these opposite parties.  Therefore it is humbly prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite parties.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issue No. 1&2: complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.P1 to P7.Opposite parties witness was examined as DW1 and documents marked as D1 to D6.Admittedly complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle and he was having a valid insurance at the time of accident.Immediately after the accident, the matter was informed to opposite parties and claim was raised.But the opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant’s driver did not had a driving license to drive the transport vehicle.The driver was having a valid license to drive the light motor vehicle and it has validity till 2025.The complainant stated that the vehicle is Nippon Toyoto Etios GD, which is a light motor vehicle.Further complainant stated that the driver did not had badge of transport vehicle.As per the Hon’ble Apex Court decision complainant is liable to get the insurance claim on non standard basis.The opposite parties repudiate the claim without a genuine reason.The opposite parties are prompt in collecting the insurance premium but fail to fulfill the assurance.Insurance policy is taken to get financial support at time of unforeseen happening complainant was having a valid insurance.The driver was having a driving license to drive LMV.Ext.D1 is the copy of Reliance Passenger Carrying Vehicle Package Policy certificate cum policy schedule.Ext.D3 is the copy of driving license of the driver of the vehicle.In Ext.D6 the opposite parties stated that D/L is not valid to drive LMV Transport at the time of loss happened.Further stated that “for breach of the Drivers clause of the motor insurance policy the aforesaid claim stands repudiated.”

According to the opposite parties the IRDA surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs.1,26,401/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.The driver of the vehicle had a driving license to drive transport vehicle expired on 29/12/2013 and that the same was renewed only from 23/06/2014 which is almost after 6 months from the date of expiry.

In united Indian Insurance Company Limited V.Gian Sinmgh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle the claim ought to be settled on a non standard basis.

In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited V. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak reported in (2006) CPJ 144(NC).In that case also the question was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving license and met with an accident.While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its Judgment the guide lines issued by the insurance company about settling all such non standard claims.

In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., V.Narayan Prasad the Hon’ble N.C held that:

“Whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving license and met with an accident.While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about setting all such non-standard claims”.

We find that there is deficiency in service on the opposite parties.In the result complaint allowed.

We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay 75% of Rs.2,93,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Only) i.e.,Rs.2,19,750/- (Rupees Two Lakh Nineteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) as the claim amount and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

                        A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 09^th  day of April, 2021.

                                                                         Sd/-

                                                              P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT

                       Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR             : MEMBER   

                      Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                           : MEMBER   

R                                                                                            

C.C.No.40/2015

APPENDIX

I           COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

            PW1: Shamnad.A               

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

   P1: Copy of RC Book.

  P2: Copy of contract carriage permit.

  P3: Copy of the GD certificate.

  P4: Copy of bill issued by Nippon Toyoto for rectifying the defects in car.

  P5: Copy of repudiation letter for opposite party dated 16/06/2014.

  P6: Copy of Driving License.

  P7: Copy of Receipt Voucher.

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

    DW1: Anas Shukkoor.

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

    D1: Copy of policy certificate cum policy schedule.

   D2: Motor claim form dated 21/05/2014.

   D3: Copy of Driving License.

   D4: Copy developed on motoveys.

   D5: Certificate for GD dated 22/05/2014.

   D6: Copy of repudiation letter dated 16/06/2014.

   D6 (a): postal receipt dated 01/07/2014.

                                                                                                                             Sd/-

         PRESIDENT

R