Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant being owner of TVS Victor motorcycle bearing Registration No. OR-09D-2020 has purchased the insurance policy from the OP and paid the usual premium covering the risk period from 27.1.2004 to 26.1 2005 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is alleged inter alia that on 7.4.2004 while the insured owner – cum – driver was driving the motor cycle, met accident against a truck as a result of which succumbed to injuries. Complainant being nominee informed the OP to settle the claim. It is alleged that after submission of all documents the OP repudiated the claim as “No Claim” on the ground that the policy holder violated the policy condition i.e. Rule – 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989. Challenging the same as deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.
4. OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. There is certain negligence from the side of the complainant’s husband. Moreover, it is averred that the driver – cum – owner has no effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. Therefore, they repudiated the claim and as such they have no any deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the impugned order which is as follows:-
“xxx xxx xxx
Under these facts and circumstances, it is ordered and the opp.party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs) only to the complainant with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of this proceeding i.e. 29.8.2005 to till the final payment. However, we are not inclined to grant any compensation towards mental shocks and agony and for deficiency of service to the complainant. The amount together with interest be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same as per provision of C.P.Act, 1986.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by allowing the complaint without considering the written version filed by them with proper perspectives. The policy in question does not cover the occurrence because the vehicle was driven by owner-cum- driver and the driver has learners licence without having any authority to drive the vehicle in public place. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd vrs. Alam Ali reported in 2014(4) CPR 239(NC). Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. There no doubt that during currency of the policy the accident took place. It is not in dispute that the complainant’s husband has learners driving licence at the time of accident. The policy in question reveals that it is valid only against own damage and third party damage. The driver clause in the policy shows that a person having valid effective driving licence as enshrined in Rule 3 of Motor Vehicle can drive the vehicle. The driving licence shows that it was valid from 28.3.2004 to 26.9.2004 and it was a learners licence. Rule – 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 says that the learners can only ride the vehicle but it cannot drive the transport vehicle in public place. The learners licence has they only prohibited to drive the transport vehicle at public place but there is no bar to drive non-transport vehicle. In the instant cast the place of occurrence in an area which is not National Highway or any likewise other public place. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of National Insurance Company (Supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here the place of occurrence is only in village area. Therefore, we are of the view that the driver has got learners licence to drive the vehicle in a place other than public place and the vehicle is also non-transport vehicle. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguished as such.
9. In the result, the impugned order is found without any defect and as such is confirmed without interfering the same.
10. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
