State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, vs Nibumon, on 2 November, 2011
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/09/237 (Arisen out of Order Dated 26/03/2009 in Case No. CC 73/07 of District Kottayam) 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Nibumon Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.237/09
JUDGMENT DATED 2.11.2011
PRESENT
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER The New India Assurance Co.Ltd, Divisional Office No.1, Polachirakal Chambers, -- APPELLANT Kottayam. (By Adv.M.Nizamudeen) Vs. Nibumon, Nellimala Puthparampu House, -- RESPONDENT Anakallu.P.O, Kanjirappally. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant in CC.73/07 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the insurance claim preferred by the complainant with respect to the insured vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 6/B-7819. The opposite party entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They justified their action in repudiating the insurance claim on the ground that the vehicle was driven by a driver having no badge to drive the subject vehicle namely; a transport vehicle. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Before the Forum below, Ext.A1 to A3 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. No other evidence was adduced from either side. On an appreciation of the facts of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 26th March 2009 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- by way of the insurance claim amount to the complainant and also to pay interest and costs. The Forum below interpreted the provisions of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and came to the conclusion that the subject vehicle being a motor cab, the driver of the said vehicle was not in need or requirement of vehicle badge. It is against the said order, the present appeal is preferred.
3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. He remained absent through out this appeal proceedings. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He argued for the position that the subject vehicle is a transport vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle was in need of a badge to drive the aforesaid class of vehicle. He also pointed out the mistaken interpretation of Section 3 of the M.V. Act by the Forum below. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
4. There is no dispute that the vehicle involved in the motor accident was a transport vehicle. The same was put in use as a taxi vehicle. There is no quarrel about the fact that the subject vehicle was insured by the appellant/opposite party (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) and at the time of the accident, the said vehicle was driven by its driver without a badge. Thus, the respondent/complainant violated the policy condition regarding license to drive the subject vehicle.
5. The Forum below has gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that the subject vehicle being a motor cab its driver was not in need of a badge to drive the subject vehicle. But, the aforesaid interpretation of the provisions of Section 3 of the M.V. Act cannot be accepted as such. A careful and close analysis of the said provisions of Section 3 of the M.V.Act would make it clear that when a motor cab or motor cycle is taken on higher for his own use (driver's own use) then such a person need not possess a badge or like endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. But in the present case on hand, the driver of the subject vehicle was driving the vehicle for the insured namely; the complainant and the said vehicle was put in use on higher to carry passengers. In such a position, the driver of the subject vehicle must possess a badge to drive the transport vehicle. So, the appellant/opposite party Insurance Company is perfectly justified in repudiating the Insurance claim.
6. The respondent/complainant being the insured of the subject vehicle violated the policy conditions by permitting a person to drive the insured vehicle without a valid and effective license. There can be no doubt about the fact that the subject vehicle can be classified as a motor cab having permit for carrying not more than 6 persons. At the same time, the insured subject vehicle has been put in use as a taxi vehicle. Thus, the subject vehicle would come under the classification provided for transport vehicles. The Forum below was of the wrong view that the subject vehicle being a motor cab no badge is required for the driver of the said vehicle.
7. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act would make it abundantly clear that the driver of motor vehicle is required a valid and effective driving license to drive that particular class of vehicle. The aforesaid provision would make it further clear that the subject vehicle being a transport vehicle was in need of a badge authorizing the driver to drive a transport vehicle. In the present case on hand, the driver of the subject vehicle, at the time of the accident, was not having a badge. There can be no quarrel about the fact that the driver of a transport vehicle must possess a badge endorsing him to drive the said class of vehicle namely; transport vehicle. So, the respondent/complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle and insured of the subject vehicle permitted the driver to drive the subject vehicle without valid and effective driving license namely; a badge endorsing the driver to drive a transport vehicle. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be quashed. Hence we do so. The appellant/opposite party Insurance Company is well fortified in repudiating the Insurance claim preferred by the respondent/complainant.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.3.09 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC No. 73/07 is set aside. The complaint therein is also dismissed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER [HONARABLE MR. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN] PRESIDING MEMBER