CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)
Versus
SHIDDAYYA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)
MR. S.M. TRIPATHI
29 Apr 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 608 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 05/12/2008 in Appeal No. 1773/2008 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.No-9/1, Ulsoor Road, Bangalore Karnataka
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SHIDDAYYA & ANR.S/o. Veerayya Revayyanavar , R/o. Dr. Jakirhussain Colony , Mulgundaka Gadag -580102Karnataka 2. THE MANAGER ALLFIN SERCIVE & SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD,No. 3776/1, Next, to Vishwa Hotel . Near Karyappa Circle , P.B. Road, GadagKarnataka
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 29 Apr 2010
ORDER
Respondents obtained a goods carrying commercial vehicle insurance cover from petitioners-company for his vehicle PIAGGIO 3 - wheeler pick up van for the period of 26.04.2007 to 25.04.2008. While so, while carrying goods it collided with a truck coming from opposite direction and suffered damages. In the road accident that happened, while one of the occupants of vehicle succumbed to injuries rest survived with injuries on their persons. Vehicle being insured, a claim that was lodged with petitioner-insurance company was repudiated on two premises, firstly, that since person driving vehicle held driving licence to drive only light motor vehicle, the vehicle in question being transport vehicle, the driver was not qualified to drive aforesaid transport vehicle in absence of any endorsement made on the driving licence by licencing authority. Claim was repudiated also on premises that occupants in vehicle were in excess of sanctioned capacity. Aggrieved with repudiation of claim, door of consumer fora was knocked filing a -3- complaint and District Forum on consideration of weight of vehicle in question, having overruled objections raised on part of insurance-company while accepting claim directed insurance-company to make payment of assessed value to respondents. State Commission too in appeal having endorsed finding of District Forum dismissed appeal of insurance-company, hence this revision. Before I dwell upon the issue relevant provisions of insurance policy and also Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 need to be noticed. Eligibility of Driver to drive the vehicle with a valid and effective licence can be noticed in insurance policy, which are in following terms: Driver: Any person including the insured. Provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has a provision in following terms:- No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him -4- authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab or motor cycle) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. Section 2 (47) defines Transport Vehicles in following terms:- Transport vehicle means a public carrier vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Section 5 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires that no owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle. Without dilating issue further provisions of the insurance policy and also Motor Vehicles Act, reference of which has been cited above, in no uncertain terms makes distinction between a light vehicle and transport vehicle. As the Driver in question was driving a transport carrier, which is quite a distinct vehicle from non-transport vehicle, he was not qualified while holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle to drive transport vehicle or commercial carrier without authorization from licencing authority. -5- Since transport vehicle is a different class of vehicle than the Light Motor Vehicle, Driver holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles would not ifso facto be eligible to drive transport vehicle too without authorization. Plethora of decisions are on the issue, I can notice a decision of National Commission in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Kumar Rajak III 2008 CPJ 191 NC). Inspiration can be drawn also from decisions of Honble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Vs. Kusum Rai II 2006 CPJ 8 SC and decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, I 2008 CPJ 1 SC. As Driver did not hold valid and effective licence to hold transport vehicle at the material time of incident, insurance-company was well within its right in not admitting liability to indemnify losses suffered by claimant. Finding of State Commission being not sustainable, is set aside and revision petition accordingly succeeds, with no order as to costs.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
