KERALA STATE CONSUMENR DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.66/01 JUDGMENT DATED 14.07.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER United India Insurance Company Ltd., Alwaye represented by its Senior Divisional Manager United India, : APPELLANT Insurance Company, Divisioinal Office(I),Trivandrum (By Adv.R.Jagadish Kumar) Vs U.A.Karunakaran, Unnikiriakath House, (Karunalayam), Palliport P.O., : RESPONDENT Munambam, Ernakulam District. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.17.10.2000 passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.973/2000 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party, claiming the insurance amount with respect to the vehicle insured with the opposite party. The insurance company repudiated the claim made by the complainant. The lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opposite party to reconsider the claim submitted by the complainant on merits. Dissatisfied with the impugned order the opposite party filed the present appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant who is the owner of the Tata 407 goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-7/W-4847 insured the same with the opposite party. On 2.4.2000 the vehicle hit on a wall on the side of the road and both the vehicle and the wall damaged and were repaired spending Rs.48,640/-. The claim made by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on 24.7.2000 on the ground that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The driver was having a valid licence up to 22.9.95 and he renewed the licence only on 6.7.2000, that is after the accident. According to the complainant the driver had a valid driving licence from 1989 onwards and merely because he did not renew the licence immediately after the expiry of the licence is not the sufficient reason to repudiate the claim. Alleging deficiency of service the complainant filed the complaint before the forum. 3. The insurance company filed the version and denied the allegation that the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. They further contended that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver who had no valid and effective licence at the time of accident and as per the conditions of policy, they are not liable to compensate the complainant. 4. We have heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and respondent/complainant and gone through the records. During the course of argument the counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. The appellant resisted the complaint on the ground that the driver was not having proper and effective driving licence at the time of accident and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant/respondent. He has also relied on decision reported in P.I.Skaria Vs The New India Insurance Company Ltd 2007 (2) CPR 168. In the above cited decision the repudiation of claim by the insurer is justified on the ground that the driver was not having effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. 5. The main question is to be considered is whether the insurance company was deficient in rendering service and wrongly disallowed the claim of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the validity of licence had expired on 22.9.95. No doubt that there occurred violation of conditions stipulated in the policy. The terms and conditions in the policy of insurance are binding on both parties. The vehicle met with an accident on 2.4.2000 whereas the licence of the driver had expired on 22.9.95. S.15 of M.V.Act provides that an application for renewal is to be made within 30 days from the date of its expiry. Here no application was made within the stipulated period. 6. The Forum relying on the decision in B.V.Nagaraju Vs Oriental insurance Company Ltd (1996) 4 SCC 647 held that mere violation of the policy conditions is not a ground to repudiate the claim and the insurance company has to consider whether such violation had any nexus with the accident and that the repudiation of the claim is unjustified. 7. There is no dispute that the vehicle involved is a commercial vehicle and the person driving the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground of violation of one of the conditions mentioned in the driver’s clause. There occurred violation of the policy condition that enabled the opposite party to repudiate the claim. We have also gone through the decisions reported in National Insurance Company Vs Kusum Rai II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC), National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Laxmi Narani Dhut III 2007 CPJ 13 (SC), Abrar Ahmed Ansari Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd and another I (2007) (NC). In the above decisions it was held that the absence of authorization ie; badge to drive commercial vehicle is sufficient to dishonour the liability under the policy. In this case the driver was not having effective and valid licence. We find that the above cited decisions are squarely applicable. 8. The complainant/respondent has pleaded that due to mechanical failure the vehicle met with the accident, but he has thoroughly failed to prove the same. It is well settled law that pleadings are not evidence much less proof. In the absence of any evidence the case of the complainant cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that the validity of licence had expired about 5 years back and it was renewed only after the accident. Moreover the complainant has no case that he had given application for renewal within 30 days from the date of expiry of his licence. 9. We find that there is substance in the grounds advanced by the insurance company while repudiating the claim and also find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company and we are inclined of uphold the same. For the above mentioned reasons we are of the view that the conclusion arrived by the forum is wrong and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.No.973/2000 is set aside. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER R.AV
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
