CC Filed on 25.02.2008<br /> Disposed on 21.10.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 21st day of October 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.21/2008<br /> <br /> Srinivas,<br /> S/o Venkateshappa,<br /> Aged about 37 years,<br /> Hunasanahalli Village,<br /> Bangarpet Post & Taluk,<br /> Kolar District. Complainant <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. T.V.Ramesh & Others) <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> M/s Bajaj Allianz General<br /> Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> No.31, Ground Floor,<br /> T.B.R. Towers, 1st Cross,<br /> New Mission Road,<br /> Next to Bangalore Stock Exchange,<br /> Bangalore – 560 024. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.Kumar & Others) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.54,299/- towards damages to complainant with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment with costs etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of the case may be stated as follows: That the complainant is the RC owner of the three wheeler goods auto riksha <br /> CC No.21/2008<br /> bearing registration No.KA-08 3311. The complainant insured this vehicle with opposite party for the period from 30.08.2007 to 29.08.2008 for Rs.1,24,300/- and obtained commercial vehicle – package policy bearing No.OG/08-1701-1803-00005177. <br /> <br /> When this vehicle was being driven with goods on 23.11.2007 at about 2-15 pm near Nagondhi gate on Bangarpet – Budikote Road met with an accident and the said vehicle was extensively damaged. Immediately the jurisdictional police and the opposite party were informed regarding the accident. A surveyor of opposite party inspected the vehicle and asked to shift the vehicle to authorized workshop. Accordingly the vehicle was shifted to an authorized workshop and in all the complainant spent Rs.54,299/- for the repair of the vehicle. When a claim was made the opposite party by letter dated 04.02.2008 repudiated the claim on untenable ground. Hence this complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party appeared and contested the claim contending that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident, thereby under the terms of policy the claim was not admissible. The issue of policy and the happening of accident and certain damage to vehicle are not disputed. <br /> <br /> 4. Both parties filed documents and affidavits in support of their respective contentions. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration: <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the driver was holding a valid and effective driving <br /> licence at the time of accident?<br /> 2. If not whether the complainant is entitle to any relief?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> CC No.21/2008<br /> 6. After considering the evidence on record and the submissions of parties our findings are as follows: <br /> <br /> Point No.1: Admittedly the vehicle in question is goods carrying – three wheeler – public carrier. It is not disputed that auto riksha cab and auto riksha goods carrier are Light Motor Vehicles. One Srinivas was the driver of this vehicle at the time of accident. The xerox copy of the licence is produced and at the time of argument the original license is also produced. This driving license shows that the holder of this license is licensed to drive throughout India light motor vehicle (Auto Riksha Cab). Further it shows that the licence to drive transport vehicle was valid from 06.05.2002 to 05.05.2005 and subsequently it was renewed from time to time and the last such renewal is for the period from 06.06.2008 to 05.06.2011. Further it shows that authorization to drive transport vehicle is in respect of autoriksha cab. There is no mention in the driving licence that the holder of the license is licensed to drive goods carrying – three wheeler – public carrier. <br /> <br /> The learned counsel for the complainant submits that authorization to drive transport vehicle in respect of auto riksha cab, itself is sufficient to drive goods carrying – three wheeler – public carrier. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that specific endorsement authorizing to drive goods carrying – three wheeler – public carrier is necessary to drive such class of vehicle. The endorsement dated 18.09.2008 issued by RTO KGF in respect of the present holder of the driving licence shows that he is not authorized to drive the goods auto riksha (goods carriage). <br /> <br /> Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 states as follows: <br /> “3. Necessity for driving license.- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective <br /> CC No.21/2008<br /> driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than [a motorcab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do”. <br /> <br /> It appears that auto riksha cab and auto riksha goods carrier are different classes of vehicles. Therefore it appears that specific endorsement to drive auto riksha goods carrier is necessary to drive such vehicle. In the present case admittedly there is no such endorsement in the driving licence to drive the auto riksha goods carrier. Therefore we hold that there was no effective and valid driving licence for driver Srinivas to drive auto riksha goods carrier at the time of accident. Hence we hold point No.1 in negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: This is a own damage case and not third party claim. Hence in the absence of the valid and effective driving licence the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages from the opposite party. Point No.2 is held accordingly.<br /> <br /> Point No.3: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 21st day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />