KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL 132/08 JUDGMENT DATED 15.9.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP.362/04 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER A.K.Shajahan, S/o Aliar Kunju, : APPELLANT T.C.15/1652, Opposite Women’s College, Vazhuthacad, Trivandrum. (By Adv.S.Sreekumar) Vs. The Divisional Manager, : RESPONDENT New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Office –1, First Floor, Kottarathil Builidng, Thiruvananthapuram – 33. (By Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 20.9.04 in OP.No.362/04 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite party whereby the Forum dismissed the complaint. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his Fiat Uno Car bearing Registration No.KL-01-S-313 which was insured with the opposite party for a period from 6.7.2000 to 5.7.01 for a sum of Rs.4.43 lakhs met with an accident on 21.3.01 and damaged extensively. Permit was to use it as a contract carriage. The complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he submitted claim form to the opposite party. As the opposite party offered to settle the claim on salvage basis, the complainant gave the consent letter to the opposite party to settle the claim for Rs.1,75,000/- under salvage loss basis. The complainant had obtained a driving license from RTO, Mumbai for driving heavy motor vehicles. When he shifted his residence to Alleppy he obtained a driving license for driving motorcycle with gear and light motor vehicles. He has also obtained a badge for driving transport vehicle with effect from 13.1.91. The complainant produced a license issued by Mumbai licensing authority. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that as per Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules badge to drive contract carriage was essential and the driver did not have the badge. Hence the complainant filed complaint before the Forum for getting 1,75,000/- with 16.5% interest along with compensation and cost. 3. The opposite party has filed version and contended that on scrutiny of records it was found that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive that particular class of vehicle. The license produced by the complainant was one issued by the ALA, Mumbai in which there was no badge authorizing him to drive passenger vehicle. Subsequent to the claim he produced another license issued by RTO, Alleppey along with a badge and on verification there was difference in date of commencement of the badge noted in the records and in the badge. Moreover holding of 2 licenses is prohibited and as per Rule 25 of KMV rules and in case of holding 2 licenses, the 2nd one is to be cancelled and the first one is to be retained. They further contended that there was violation of various provisions in the MV Act and Rules from the side of the complainant and hence he was not entitled for any compensation and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondent/opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant argued for the position that the driver had a valid driving license with badge to drive a transport vehicle at the time of accident. He has also argued that the badge was not cancelled at any point of time, though the first driving license was cancelled by the authority. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the opposite party had no case that the driver did not have a badge at all to drive a transport vehicle, though the opposite party would say that the driver ought to have cancelled the 2nd driving license as per Rule 25 of KMV Rules. However in the instant case the license got from the Mumbai authorities was cancelled only at a later stage and at the crucial time he had a license with him with an endorsement of badge in the 2nd license which is not cancelled and hence he argued for the position that the Forum ought to have given a direction to the opposite party, insurer to pay the claim amount to the complainant. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He argued before us that the Forum has appreciated every aspect of the case in detail and passed the order which is only to be upheld. He canvassed for the position that there was serious violation of the policy conditions and hence the action in repudiating the claim is only justifiable. He also argued that the license produced by the complainant was one issued by the Mumbai authorities which contained no badge authorizing him to drive a passenger vehicle. It is also his case that the 2nd license produced by the complainant could not be accepted for the reason that as per section 6 of MV Act holding of 2 licenses by the same person is not permitted and that as per Section 25 of KMV Rules, of the 2 driving licenses, the 2nd one is to be cancelled where as in the present case the first license was cancelled which was not proper. It is his case that if at all the complainant wanted to sustain the badge endorsed in the 2nd license he ought to have taken steps to get the badge endorsed in the first license issued by the Mumbai authorities. He argued for the position that the complainant was unsuccessful in getting a correct endorsement in the first license. So the repudiation was correct and hence legal and sustainable. Thus he supported the finding and conclusions of the Forum below and he argued for the dismissal of the appeal, thereby dismissal of the complaint also. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent we are of the opinion that holding more than one license must be interpreted in such a way that holding more than one license for a particular class or same type of vehicle. In the present case he was holding driving license for driving heavy vehicles ie for a specific class of vehicle at the same time he was also having driving license with respect to drive another class of vehicle ie LMV, commercial vehicles. So as far as the driver in the present case is concerned he was not prohibited from holding the aforesaid two driving licenses for driving 2 categories of vehicles. Moreover it is none of the business of the insurance Co. to enquire upon the prohibition envisaged under Section 6 of the MV Act. Even if the driver had committed any such violation as contemplated under Section 6 of the MV Act, it is for the authorities under the MV Act to act against him under the relevant provisions of MV Act. Moreover the 2nd driving license is not cancelled by the concerned authorities at the time of accident. So it can only be held that he was having a valid and effective driving license to drive LMV, commercial vehicles at the time of accident. In such a circumstance it is our considered view that the driver had a driving license for driving a transport vehicle at the time of accident though his first license was cancelled at a later stage. 7. In the said circumstances we find that the opposite party ought to have allowed the claim of the complainant as per rules. The opposite party has admitted the claim of the complainant at Rs.1,75,000/- under salvage loss basis and it was not paid on the later finding that the driver had no valid license at the time of accident. We are of the view that the opposite party is not empowered to repudiate the claim on this ground. We find that complainant is entitled to Rs.1,75,000/- arrived at by the opposite party. Opposite party is also liable to pay interest for the above amount from the date of complaint till the date of payment which we fix as 6% per annum. In the result the appeal is allowed thereby the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,75000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
