BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HYDERABAD.
FA 1376 of 2010 against C.C. 67/2010 Dist. Forum, Tirupathi
Between:
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Rep. by its Branch Manager
1st Floor, Hotel Sai Residency
G.S. Mada Street, Tirupathi
Chittoor Dist. *** Appellant/
. Opposite Party And
Soturu Jayasudha
W/o. Late S. Babu
Diguvagandla Street
Narayanavanam (V&M)
Chittor Dist.
*** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. N. Mohana Krishna
Counsel for the Respondent: P.I.P
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY MAY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao,
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company, opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 1 lakh covered under the policy with interest @ 9% p.a., from 12.10.2009 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs. 1,500/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the wife of late S. Babu. He insured his two wheeler Hero Honda motor cycle with the appellant insurance company covering the period from 6.1.2009 to 5.1.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. While so 14.6.2009 at about 7.30 p.m. When he along with two others were proceeding on the motor cycle, the driver of a tractor drove it rashly and negligently hit the motor cycle due to which all the three fell down, and the deceased died on spot. On a report the police registered it as a case in Crime No. 91/2009 u/s and 337 IPC against the driver-cum-owner of the tractor. When she made claim followed by registered notice the insurance company repudiated on the ground that the deceased was not having driving license. Assailing the repudiation she filed the complaint claiming the amount covered under the policy together with compensation and costs.
3) The appellant insurance company resisted the case. While admitting issuance of it alleged that at the time when the vehicle was involved in the accident, the deceased who was driving the vehicle did not have valid driving license, equally the pillion riders. The very policy stipulates that the driver should hold a valid and effective driving license. It is also a violation of Rule 3 Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. the repudiation was just. The Motor Vehicles mentioned that the license issued to the deceased was a learner’s license where the pillion rider should hold a valid and requisite driving license. Since he was not having requisite driving the claim was repudiated, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of her case filed affidavit evidence and got Ex. A1 to A11 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Branch Manager and got Ex. B1 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the deceased was having learner’s license and that there was no mistake on his part in the accident, and therefore she was entitled to the claim amount and directed the insurance company to pay the amount covered under the policy together with interest and costs.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the insurance company preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to seen that question of mistake either of the parties is not a matter to be considered. What all required is that the deceased should hold a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. As there was violation of terms of the policy besides Rule 3 of Central Vehicles Rules, 1989 she was not entitled to any amount.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant’s husband had taken policy for Rs. 1 lakh for his two wheeler Hero Honda motor cycle covering the period from 6.1.2009 to 5.1.2010 vide Ex. A1 showing the complainant as his nominee. It is also not dispute that he was having a learner’s driving license Ex. A2. It is also not in dispute while he was driving the said vehicle carrying two other pillion riders , met with an accident on 14.6.2009, and succumbed to injuries on spot when a tractor dashed against his vehicle.
9) The question whether the deceased was at fault or the driver of the tractor was at has no bearing in a claim made to be adjudicated for the amount covered under an insurance policy. Such a claim, for compensation if she is entitled, can only be made before the tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act (MACT).
10) At the cost of repetition, we may state that the claim pursuant to a policy taken by the deceased she will be entitled to the said amount provided, there is no violation of terms of the policy. As earlier stated, the deceased only having learner’s license which the complainant herself filed marked as Ex. A2. Rule of 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules reads as
“The attention of the holder of this license is drawn to the Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which prohibits him from driving any motor vehicle unless he has besides him a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle and in every case the vehicle carries “L” plates both in front and rear of the vehicle.”
11) It is not a case the pillion riders who were travelling were holding driving licenses. Instead of taking a pillion rider having license, he allowed two persons to sit on the vehicle. Had there been evidence to show pillion riders, at least one of them was having valid driving license it could be stated that the deceased had not violated Rule 3 as stated above. Unfortunately, there is evidence that any of the pillion riders was having valid driving license. The very policy mentions that:
“Driver; any person including insured; provided a person driving holds an obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an learner’s license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfied the requirements of Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989”
When deceased in violation of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules was driving the vehicle, the insurance company cannot be said to be unjust in repudiating the claim. We do not agree with opinion of the Dist. Forum while awarding the insurance amount observing that the deceased was not at fault. The said question is besides the point in issue.
12) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gian Chand reported in (1997) 7 SCC 558 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “where the insured alleged to have committed breach of the condition of insurance policy, which required them not to permit the vehicle to be driven by an unlicensed driver, such a breach is held to be a valid defence for the insurance company to get exonerated from meeting the claims.” In the light of the facts, we are of the that the complainant is not entitled to any amount under the policy.
13) In the result the appeal is setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
16/05/2012
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
