D.o.F:10/2/06<br /> D.o.O:4 /7/08<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> CC.NO.15/06 <br /> Dated this, the 4th July 2008<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER <br /> <br /> Mrs.Rajasree.T.R,<br /> W/o P.Ramachandran, 6/273,<br /> Vaishak Nivas, Maladukkam, : Complainant<br /> Mavungal, Po.Anandashram.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,<br /> Branch Office,City Point Building, : Opposite party<br /> Press Club Junction,Kasaragod. <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT: <br /> <br /> The facts relevant to this case are that the complainant is the owner of tourist vehicle KL 14/E 4675 insured with opposite party which met with an accident on 30/3/05 within the insured period 15/2/05 to 14/2/06. Survey was carried out but the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle does not possess a valid driving license to drive transport vehicle. According to the complainant at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was plying the vehicle for his own purpose and not for hire or reward and the passengers were his relatives. Hence no FIR was lodged regarding the accident. Therefore, the repudiation on the ground that the driver was not having authorization to drive transport vehicle amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint claiming Rs.121568/- towards the expenses she incurred for the repair of vehicle and compensation for mental agony.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party refutes the claim and contends that at the time of accident the driver was not holding a valid driving license authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle and it amounts to violation of policy conditions. Hence the claim is repudiated.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant filed an affidavit reiterating what is stated in her complaint. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. The Branch Manager of opposite party company filed counter affidavit in support of their contentions and Ext.B1 marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. The counsel for the complainant argues that the driver was holding valid driving license to drive Heavy goods vehicle and Heavy Passenger vehicle and his application to renew the authorization to drive the transport vehicle was pending prior to accident. Further according to the counsel for complainant at the time of accident the driver was driving the vehicle for his own use and in view of Sec.3 of the M.V.Act he can drive a transport vehicle for his own use.<br /> <br /> 5. The counsel for the opposite party relying on a decision reported in I(2004)CPJ 25(NC) argued that at the material time of accident the driver was not having a valid license to drive a transport vehicle and the argument that the ‘own use’ mentioned in Sec.3 of the M.V.Act means hired for own use as envisaged in the scheme provided U/S 75(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. This argument appears to be plausible.<br /> <br /> 6. Exr.A10 is the xerox copy of the driving license of the driver Binumon Jacob who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. The endorsements made by the Licensing Authority shows that the driver has got valid license to drive non-transport vehicle from 21/6/1994 to till 20/6/2014 and he has authorized to drive HGV ( Heavy Goods Vehicle), HPV (Heavy Passenger Vehicle) w.e.f 19/7/96. His authorization to drive transport vehicle is also renewed from 7/4/05 to 6/4/08. That is after one week from the date of accident. The renewal of driving license to drive transport vehicle shows that the driver was not otherwise disqualified from possessing a license to drive a transport vehicle but the endorsement by the licensing authority. That apart he was also possessing license to drive LMV,H.G.V and HPV. Proviso to Sec.14 of the Motor Vehicles Act shows that a driving license is valid for a period of one month even after the date of its expiry. In this case authority to drive transport vehicle was expired as early on 18/7/2002 and the same was got renewed only on 7/4/05 so this provision will not help the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. So considering the validity of the license to drive LMV, HGV and HPV and the renewal of the driving license to drive the transport vehicle on a close proximate date after the accident the claim of the complainant could have been settled at least on non-standard basis.<br /> <br /> 8. But we could not attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhulal (I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC). In this matter a server of appeals in which a common question of law has been raised regarding the validity of the driving licenses and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of specific endorsement as required U/S 3 of the M.V.Act the Insurance companies are not liable to honour the claim for damages.<br /> <br /> In the light of above discussion we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the complaint therefore dismissed. But with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts:<br /> A1-Invoice for work contract<br /> A2&A3-Retail Invoice<br /> A4-Debit invoice<br /> A5-Invoice for works contract<br /> A6-covering letter<br /> A7,A9-26/5/05,25/7/05-Letters issued by OP to the complainant<br /> A8-Reply issued by complainant to OP<br /> A10- Xerox copy of the driving license <br /> B1- Insurance Policy<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> eva/<br />