By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is aggrieved that opposite parties failed to indemnify the loss sustained in an accident to his vehicle KL10/B 6273, a passenger bus.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party filed version admitting the insurance coverage for the said vehicle for the period 15-12-05 to 14-12-06. It is also admitted that the bus met with an accident involving collision with another bus and sustained damages. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver Sri.P.Mohammed did not have an effective and valid driving licence and badge on the relevant date of accident to drive a vehicle of HPV class. The claim was denied due to violation of policy condition and hence there is no deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 4. The vital question that poses for consideration before us is whether opposite party is justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive heavy transport vehicle. The evidence tendered by complainant through affidavit is that the driver P. Mohammed who drove the vehicle at the relevant time had licence, but there was a omission to renew it. It is also stated that, complainant who is the owner/insured came to know of it only after the accident. That the licence was later renewed on 18-7-06 after the accident. Ext.A1 is the photo copy of the licence of driver P. Mohammed. On perusal of Ext.A1 it is evident that his licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle is valid for the period 25-9-1999 to 13-5-2018. The licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle was issued with effect from 1990. His licence to drive HPV and HGV was renewed from 14-01-03 to 13-01-06. Thereafter it was renewed late from 18-7-06 to 17-7-2009. Therefore on the relevant date of accident ie., 28-3-2006 the driver did not have an effective driving licence to drive a HPV. Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act expressly states that a driving licence issued or renewed to drive a transport vehicle be effective for a period of three years. In the case, of any other licence, if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal there of had not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or renewal be effective for a period of twenty years, from the date of such issue or renewal. Thus it is clear that the licence issued in respect of transport vehicle can be effective only for a period of three years. Admittedly the alleged vehicle is a heavy transport vehicle. It is established from materials on record it is proved that the driver did not possess an effective driving licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle at the time of accident. It is contended by the complainant, who is the owner cum insured, that he came to know of this fact only when the driver disclosed to him after the accident. Sec. 5 of Motor Vehicle Act declares that no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sec. 3 to drive the vehicle. Therefore Sec. 5 makes it incumbent upon the owner to find out and be cautious as to whether the driver possesses valid licence to drive before he is put in charge of the vehicle. Especially in the case of a vehicle being a bus which carries passengers the owner has to be extra careful. So the plea of ignorance of the complainant that he had no knowledge about the lack of licence of his driver is untenable. One of the conditions of policy of insurance is that the insured shall not allow a person who does not hold a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The licence of the driver in the present case expired on 13-01-06. It was renewed only on 18-7-06. It has been held in 2006(2) KLT page 8 Rohini Vs. Kumaran that if application for renewal is made within 30 days licence is valid and effective from the date of expiry. If renewal is after 30 days the renewed licence is valid and effective only from the date of issue.<br /> <br /> 5. For the above reasons, we have no doubt to conclude that opposite parties have proved that complainant has violated policy condition. The only point left for consideration is whether the breach of policy condition was so fundamental to the cause of accident. It is submitted by opposite parties in their version that the accident arose out of collision between two vehicles. Absolutely no pleadings or evidence is tendered by complainant as to the nature and cause of accident. There is no whisper in the complaint or in the affidavit that the driver P. Mohammed had taken all reasonable care and that there was no negligence on the part of driver P. Mohammed. In such circumstances we have no dispute to conclude that insurance Company is justified in holding that there was breach of policy condition. It has been held by Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhulal 2008 CTJ (1) S.C.(CP) that, “If the licence issued to a driver to ply only a light motor vehicle and there is no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the insurance company cannot be saddled with a liability to pay compensation in case transport vehicle he was driving was involved in accident.” From the above discussions we hold that insurance was justified in repudiating the claim. We find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the light of above discussions complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. <br /> <br /> 6. In the result, we dismiss the complaint. There is no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 21st day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A6<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the driving licence of P. Mohammed.<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Certificate of Insurance Passengers Carrying <br /> Commercial Vehicle with effect from 15-12-05 to 14-12-06.<br /> Ext.A3 : Registered reply notice dated, 10-01-07 by opposite party<br /> to complainant's counsel.<br /> Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the premium receipt from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the Lawyer notice dated, 06-01-07 by complainant's<br /> counsel to opposite party.<br /> Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the Certificate of Insurance Passengers Carrying <br /> Commercial Vehicle with effect from 15-12-06 to 14-12-07.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER