Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Thorat 

Opponent through Lrd Adv. Maheshwari 

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

// J U D G M E N T //

(18/11/2013)

                                                                                                                    This complaint is filed by consumer against the insurance company, who has wrongly repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The complainant is a resident of Bori, Pardhi, Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune.  He is the owner of jeep no. MH-42, A-2454.  He has obtained comprehensive insurance policy of the said jeep from opposite party for the period from 15/9/2008 to 15/9/2009 and the policy number is 1611000/31/2009/3556.  On 1/7/2009 one Mr. Ashok Bajirao Bhosale was driving the said jeep from Morgaon to Jejuri by the left side of the road and by observing all the rules and regulations of the traffic.  When the jeep came near the place of accident, in order to avoid motorcyclist, who was coming from opposite side, the jeep came to the extreme left side of the road and gave dash to the tree standing by the side of the road.  The jeep was seriously damaged.  As the complainant had obtained comprehensive insurance policy of the jeep, he informed the fact of accident to the opponent and claimed the repair charges of the jeep.  The opponent has repudiated the claim without considering correct provisions of law.  According to the complainant, at the time of accident, the driver of the jeep was possessing valid driving licence to drive the Heavy Motor Vehicle.  However, the opponent had repudiated the claim of the complainant saying that the said licence is not valid for driving Light Motor Vehicle.  According to the complainant, there is no breach of conditions of the policy.  The complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- for the repairs of the damaged vehicle.   He is entitled to receive the said amount from the opponent.  He has also claimed compensation of

Rs. 25,000/- for mental torture and inconvenience suffered due to repudiation of the claim and cost of the litigation.

2]      The opponent resisted the claim by filing written version.  According to the opponent, the claim is rightly repudiated by the opponent, as there is clear cut breach of condition of the policy and the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was holding licence to drive heavy motor vehicle and he was not having licence to drive light motor vehicle, hence it is a breach of condition of the policy and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS :-

4]      The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that, the complainant is the owner of the jeep and he had insured his vehicle with the opponent for the relevant period.  The fact as regards with the occurrence of the accident is not seriously disputed by the opponent.  It reveals from the correspondence between the parties, as well as the pleadings that, the claim is repudiated by the opponent only on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident and that amounts to breach of condition of the policy.

5]      It reveals from the record that the driver of the vehicle was holding driving licence, which is valid for heavy motor vehicle.   Admittedly, he was driving light motor vehicle i.e. jeep.  It is significant to note that, the person, who is having driving licence for motor cycle with gear, is authorized to drive the motor cycle without gear.  A person who is holding transport vehicle licence, can not be give such licence unless, he is holding licence for light motor vehicle at least for one year.  It is thus needless to mention that the holder of transport vehicle licence can drive any Light Motor Vehicle as well may be goods or passenger carries.

6]      The learned Advocate for the opponent placed reliance upon certain rulings i.e. “Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S Lakshmanan & Ors.” Reported in 2002 ACJ Pg. 1304.  If the facts of the said rulings are perused, it reveals that, the claimant had possessed driving licence for light motor vehicle, but he was not authorized to drive Auto Rickshaw.  In that circumstance, it was observed that, a person, who is having driving licence for driving light motor vehicle has committed breach of condition of the policy and in that circumstance, his claim was repudiated.  It is significant to note that, the mechanism and operation of the heavy goods vehicle and light motor vehicle is identical.  If a person once obtained licence for driving heavy goods vehicle, he has no reason to apply for driving licence for light motor vehicle.   In that context section 7(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is relevant, which is laid down as follows,

Section 7(1) “ No person shall be granted a learner’s licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.”

          It is crystal clear from the said provision that if a person is holding licence for transport vehicle or heavy goods vehicle then it should be presumed that he is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle.  In such circumstance, I held that the Opponent has wrongly repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant.

7]      The complainant has produced bills for repair charges of the vehicle from Silver Jubilee Motors Ltd. and it appears from the same that these bills are genuine.  The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 2,04,000/-, which were spent for repairs of the vehicle and he is entitled for the same from the opponent by way of insurance claim.  The complainant is also entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service and an amount of Rs. 7,000/- for mental and physical sufferings  and  an  amount of Rs. 3,000/- by way of  cost  of

litigation.  If the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- is not paid within 6 weeks, he is entitled to claim interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.  I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.

                                      **  ORDER **

1.                 Complaint is partly allowed.

2.       It is hereby declared that the opponent has

caused deficiency in service by repudiating

insurance claim of the complainant.

3.          The opponent is directed to pay an amount

of Rs. 2,04,000/- (Rs. Two Lac Four Thousand

only), an amount  of Rs. 10,000/-  (Rs. Ten

Thousand only)  for deficiency in service, an

amount of Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. Seven Thousand

only) for mental and physical sufferings and

an amount of Rs. 3,000/-(Rs. Three Thousand

only) by way of cost of litigation to the complainant,      

                             within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

                             this order. 

On failure to pay an amount of Rs. 2,04,000/-

within six weeks from the date of receipt of the

order, the complainant is entitled to receive

interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the

date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

                   4.       Copies of this order be furnished to the parties

free of cost.

                   5.       Parties  are directed to collect the sets,

which were provided for Members within

one month from the date of order, otherwise

those will be destroyed. 

Place – Pune

Date- 18/11/2013