Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President
Heard Mr.D.Sant-Advocate for the appellant.
Admittedly, this appeal is directed as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.326/2009 decided on 29/04/2011. Complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Complainant is owner of the tanker GA-02-V-7633. It was insured for a period 08/04/2006 to 07/04/2007. This tanker met with an accident because it dashed against the electric pole on road and there was short circuit and, ultimately, it was burnt. Since the driver was not possessed of the particular license, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has rejected the claim. Insurance company has also repudiated the claim on the same ground. Therefore, appeal has been filed.
Ld.counsel submitted that the driver was having a license, however, he admitted that special driving license for transport of inflammable liquids was not with the driver. He tried to persuade us and submitted that after dash of the tanker with the electric pole, electric wires from the pole had fallen on the tanker and, thus, fire had taken place. He tried to submit that the tanker was empty and, therefore, it was not having inflammable material, which would have caused damage. Thus, according to Learned counsel at relevant time tanker was not loaded with inflammable liquid. Therefore special license of driving as desired by Insurance company was not necessary. Therefore, repudiation of the claim and rejection of complaint by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not justifiable.
We are not in agreement with the Ld.counsel in view of the admitted position that when the tanker is expected to carry inflammable liquids, the driver should have been a trained driver for driving such a tanker. No doubt short circuit is the reason for taking fire but such tanker though empty are possessed of some remnants of inflammable liquid of the earlier transport and, therefore, they come in contact with short circuit or some other inflammable things, they immediately pick up the fire. Therefore, tanker was empty cannot be a ground to say that said tanker can be driven by any other driver than the specially trained and certified driver. Such distinction that an empty tanker of an inflammable liquids can be driven by an ordinary driver and only when it is filled, it will be driven by a trained driver cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, we do not find any substance in appeal. Appeal is hereby rejected.
Dictated in the open court.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 26th September, 2011.
