State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs N.Radhakrishnan on 25 October, 2008
.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 580/2003
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,Rep.by Divisional Manager
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
N.Radha Krishnan
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
2. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,Rep.by Divisional Manager
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. N.Radha Krishnan
For the Appellant :
1. Varkala B.Ravi Kumar
For the Respondent :
1. Rajeev.S.S
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 580/03 JUDGMENT DATED: 25.10.08 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office - 1, Rohini Building, : APPELLANT P.B.No.5612, Thekara Parambu Road, Pazhavangady, Thiruvananthpauram, Represented by its Divisional Manager, (By Adv.Varkala B.Ravikumar) Vs. N.Radhakrishnan, : RESPONDENT S/o Narayanan, Vattavila veedu, Kulakudiyoorkonam, Nemom.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Rajeev.S.S.) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance company in OP.176/2000 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthpauram. The appellants has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.7500/- towards the damages sustained to the vehicle with future interest at 14.5.% and also to pay Rs.1000/- as cost.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of ambassador car with registration No.KL.01 D 1809 .The vehicle was covered with a policy from the opposite party/appellant. The vehicle met with an accident at Vellakinar, Alleppey on 2.1.99 and the car was extensively damaged and it was repaired at the SK Motors, Kannettumukku, Thiruvananthpauram. The bill amount for Rs.9200/- was paid by the complainant. The policy was an comprehensive one. The claim was rejected.
3. The opposite party is in the version filed has pointed out that the claim was repudiated for the reason that at the time of the accident , one Biju who was driving the car was not having a valid driving license and he was not having a badge also to drive the car. Hence claim was repudiated.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P6 and D1 to D1(a)
5. The Forum allowed the claim after deducting certain sums mentioning that the same is towards marginal errors and policy excess. The Forum held that the fact that the driver is not having badge will not affect the liability of the opposite party. It was found that the driver was having the driving license as the copy of the driving license was produced.
6. The appellants has contended that Ext.P1 copy of the policy would show that it is a condition that driver should have be having an effective driving license. Indisputably the vehicle involved a taxi car. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent at the time the vehicle was driven from private purposes. We find that the above contention cannot be entertained. There is no evidence adduced to substantiate the above contention. Even if it is so we find the vehicle being the commercial vehicle it is mandatory that driver should be having badge. Effective driving license so for as the commercial purpose concerned envisages driving license with badge. Evidently there is violation of the policy condition. The terms of the contract is binding both the parties. The statute envisages that the driver of the commercial vehicle should be having the badge. It is only after having a particular number of years of experience that badge is issued to the driver. In the circumstance we find that the finding of the Forum that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount cannot be sustained. In the result the order of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ...................... JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU ...................... SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA