Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-;                      Rs.43,333/- towards interest @24% p.a., from the date of accident till date of filing, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5000/- towards legal expenses.

2.    In brief the complaint averments are hereunder:

        The 1^st complainant is the wife and complainants 2 and 3 are the parents of the insured (deceased) Aluri Ravindra.   The deceased was owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP07 TQ T/R 3595 and insured with the opposite party under policy No.MC 1000391040.   The said policy was valid from 16-09-10 to 15-09-11. On 03-12-10 at about 6.30 am the insured Ravindra was proceeding on his motor bike from Repalle to Kollur.  Near Raghava Junior College, Vellaturu village the insured Ravindra unfortunately slipped from the vehicle, fell down on the motor cycle and received grievous injuries and died on the spot.              On report, the SHO, Bhattiprole PS registered the said accident               u/s 304-A IPC.   The complainants informed to the opposite party about the accident and death of the insured besides sending necessary documents.  On 07-04-11 the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that the deceased was not having valid driving license at the time of accident.   Due to the acts of the opposite party the complainants suffered mental agony as well as monitory loss.  Not settling the claim on improper grounds amounted to deficiency of service.  Complaint therefore be allowed.   

3.    The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and the complaint did not come under the purview of Consumer Dispute envisaged in Section 2(e).                              This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the contact of insurance does not come under the purview of sale of goods as defined under section 2(i) and is liable for dismissal.  The deceased/insured his motor cycle vide AP07 TQ T/R 3595 (permanent registration No.AP07 AY 9846).   The policy covered the risk of personal accident cover to the owner-driver to a tune of               Rs.1,00,000/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy i.e., the owner/driver must hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of his death.   The complainants informed the said accident and the opposite party sent claim form and sought for required documents.  The documents submitted by the complainants revealed that the deceased did not possess valid and effective driving license.   Section 3 of the M.V. Act says that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles                    him to do so. The complainants have not shown the said                              motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 TQ T/R 3595 (Permanent registration No.AP 07 AY 9846) to surveyor.   The opposite party is not liable to pay the amounts claimed by the complainants.  The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed with costs.   

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of the complainants and Exs.B-1 to B-4 on behalf of opposite party were marked.

5.      Now the points for consideration are:

          1.  Whether the complainants are consumers under the purview                         of Consumer Protection Act?

        2. Whether the dispute comes under the purview of

                Consumer Protection Act?

        3. Whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the                               complaint?

4. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?

        5. To what relief?

6.  POINTS 1 to 3:-  The opposite party issued the insurance policy i.e., Ex.B-1 to the insured (deceased) and it was valid from 16-09-10 to 15-09-11 for consideration. Under those circumstances, the complainants are consumers and there is a triable consumer dispute in view of rejection of claim and this Forum thereby got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   We therefore answer these points in favour of the complainants.

7.   POINT No.4:-   The opposite party under Ex.B-3 repudiated the claim of the complainants on 07-04-10 as the insured/deceased did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident.    

8.     Crime No.101/2010 was registered u/s 304-A IPC by the SHO, Bhattiprole PS on 03-12-10 on the complaint given by one Aluri John Babu s/o Prabhudas as seen from Ex.A-1.   Ex.A-2 post mortem report revealed that one Aluri Ravindra aged 23 years died due to hemorrhage, shock and injuries to vital organs.  Ravindra Aluri (insured/deceased) was the owner of the two wheeler bearing             No. AP 07 AY 9846 (Chasis No.19031) as seen from Ex.B-1 and A-6.   Ex.A-9 final report revealed that the insured/deceased while driving his motor cycle lost control over the speed of the vehicle which resulted his fall from the motor cycle on the road causing grievous injury to the head and thereby breathed his lost, the crime No.101/2010 got abated.   

9.   Ex.B-1 policy revealed that the personal accident cover for owner/driver was Rs.1,00,000/- but not Rs.2,00,000/- as contended by the complainants.  Now this Forum has to see whether the insured deceased possessed valid driving license at the time of accident.  

10.  Ex.A-5 is the copy of driving license of the insured/deceased issued on 18-09-07.  Ex.A-5 revealed that the insured/deceased was having valid driving license for non transport AR (auto rickshaw), LMV (Light motor vehicle) valid till 17-09-2027, for transport HTV and Motor Cab till 25-11-2011. As seen from Ex.A-1 to A-3 the insured/deceased succumbed to grievous head injury while driving his motor bike on 03-12-10.  

11.   The contention of the complainants is that a person capable of driving auto rickshaw, LMV, HTV and Motor Cabs can drive effectively a two wheeler also.   On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that two wheelers comes under different category of vehicle under MV Act and thereby one has to possess a valid driving license to drive a two wheeler though capable of driving other vehicles.      

12.  Section 3 of MV Act runs as follows:

          “Necessity for driving license:

1. No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.
2. The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.

13.   The decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh 2005 (3) SCC 927=AIR 2004 SC 297 has no application to cases other than 3^rd party risks as held in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Lakshmi Narayan Dhutt                      2007 (3) SCC 700 and Prem Kumari and others vs. Prahlad Dev and others 2008 (3) SCC 193.

14.    The liability in this case is that of a contractual liability but not a statutory liability in view of Ex.B-1=Ex.A-8.   The terms of                   Ex.B-1= Ex.A-8 govern the contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured and its terms has to be strictly adhered to.   One of the clauses in Ex.B-1=Ex.A-8 says that any person including the insured and a person holding effective learners’ license must possess an effective driving license at the time of accident and must not have been disqualified from holding or obtaining driving license.   

15.   Section 10 of MV Act deals with form and contents of licenses to drive and it runs as follows:

1. Every learner’s and driving license, except a driving license issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
2.  A learner’s license or, as the case may be, driving license shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:

1. Motor cycle without gear;
2. Motor cycle with gear;
3. Invalid carriage;
4. Light motor vehicle
5. Mediums goods vehicle;
6. Medium passenger motor vehicle;
7. Heavy goods vehicle;
8. Heavy passenger motor vehicle;
9. Road-roller;
10. Motor vehicle of a specified description.  

16.  In this case the insured/deceased had non transport driving licence to drive non transport AR, LMV till 17-09-27 and transport driving license for HTV, and motor cab till 25-11-11 with badge No.52480.   The insured succumbed to head injury while driving a two wheeler.   In this case the insured/deceased had driving license to drive auto rickshaw which falls under clause (j) of  section 10 of MV Act.  We can therefore come to a conclusion that the insured/deceased had no effective driving license to drive motor cycle with gear or without gear.  

17.  In revision petition No.3358/11 (decided on 27-05-11) the NCDRC, in Sandya vs. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai and another held:

        “The main ground for challenge to the concurrent findings is that the District Forum and the State Commission should not have dismissed the case of the Complainant at the stage of the admission itself.  The District Forum should have recorded the evidence of the Complainant/petitioner.  The revision petitioner also states that the District Forum had failed to consider the memo of dated 5.3.2011 filed on behalf of the Complainant. A copy of this memo has been annexed to the revision petition as Annexure-4.  In this memo, the Complainant/revision petitioner had stated that in the light of the details therein, the vehicle in question should be treated as transport vehicle. A perusal of the order of the fora below shows that it is exactly the same manner in which the vehicle in question has been treated.  It has been held that the vehicle being a transport vehicle, required the license which the deceased Rathnakara Acharya did not have, at the time of the accident.  His driving license did not carry an endorsement that he was authorized to drive a transport vehicle.  This is precisely the ground on which the State Commission and the District Forum have upheld the repudiation of the claim by OP/United India Insurance Company Ltd.

            In the final analysis, we do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below.  Consequently, the revision petition No.3358 of 2011 is dismissed and the impugned order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.1339 of 2011 is confirmed.  No order as to costs”.

18.  In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Suresh Chandra Agarwal 2009 (4) CPJ 14 (SC) it was held that the interregnum period between the date of expiry of licence and the date of its renewal there was no effective licence in existence and therefore the driver had no driving licence on the date of accident and the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was justified.

19.  In M/s New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board                           2010 (4) CPR 10 (NC held that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation when driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. 

20.   In National Insurance Company Limited, Jodhpur and another vs. Shiv Shankar Sony 2012 (3) CPR 75 (NC) it was held that insurance company was liable to reimburse the loss only, if the vehicle was driven by a person having valid and effective driving license.

21.  Taking a clue from the above decisions, we opine that the insured/deceased did not possess effective driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is justified and answer this point against the complainant.

22. POINT No.5:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complainants are not entitled to any compensation.   We therefore answer this point also against the complainants.              

23. POINT No.6:-  In view of our findings on points 4 and 5, the complaint in the result is dismissed without costs.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 31^st day of July, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party : 

                                                                                             PRESIDENT