(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) Heard Adv.Pravin Gole for the appellant as the counsel for the respondent preferred to remain absent. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29/04/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.26/2009 (Shri Jagannath Dyanu Patil Vs. The Manager, The Bajaj Allianze Insurance Co.Ltd.) passed by District Forum, Kolhapur. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opponent insurance company to pay an amount of `1 lac together with an amount of `26,823/- on account of damage to the vehicle with interest @9% p.a. with effect from 19/11/2008. `2,000/- for mental agony and `1,000/- as costs of litigation were also directed to be paid to the complainant.
(2) Aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short, ‘opponent insurance company’) preferred this appeal on a very short point that the deceased son of respondent/complainant who was driving insured motor bike did not possess valid license as required under Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. The District Forum has observed that as per policy condition, there was a valid driving license with the deceased son of respondent/complainant as required under Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 and allowed the consumer complaint of the respondent/complainant.
(3) It is pertinent to note that opponent insurance company did not appreciate the fact that it was the truck dashed against the insured motor bike on the fateful day, resulting into the death of the respondent/complainant’s son and also pillion rider. The insurance policy condition reproduced in the impugned order specifically says that “Driver-Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence (Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.” On the day of incident of accident, the deceased son of the respondent/complainant was admittedly holding learner’s licence issued under Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. There are certain conditions for issue of learner’s licence set out in the said rule 3. These are pre-requisite conditions for issue of learner’s licence and obviously the learner’s licence was issued by the authorities on fulfilling the conditions set out in the rule 3 of the said Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. Decision of the concerned authority cannot be questioned by the opponent insurance company. Nay, the deceased son had valid learner’s licence, policy terms & conditions provides that the effective learner’s licence holder also qualified and covered under the contingency provided in insurance policy. In the facts & circumstances, the defence of the insurance company is not based on sound reasoning as policy conditions provide to cover this contingency. We observe that in the case on hand, such a contingency is covered under the policy, therefore, the opponent insurance company has grossly erred in repudiating the insurance claim payable under the insurance policy as per the terms & conditions provided thereunder. The District Forum has rightly appreciated the issues in the complaint more particularly the validity of the driving licence in relation to the terms & condition provided under the policy issued by the opponent insurance company. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted with and we cannot take a different view than what has already been taken by the District Forum while passing the impugned order. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 09th August, 2012.
