National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ladu Kishore Sahu on 21 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: III(2003)CPJ99(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1.This revision petition filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is against the order dated 16.11.2001 of the Orlssa State Commission, setting aside the District Forum's order dated 13.1.1998 in Original Petition Case No. 411/1996 directing the Insurance Company to pay the insured amount under the Motor Vehicles Policy to the original complainant Mr. Ladu Kishore Sahu.
2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows :
The respondent's taxi was covered by an insurance policy which was given by the revision petitioner on the day the vehicle was involved in an accident. Though initially, the driver's name was given as Japani Gurnaik, subsequently, the police found that the son of the respondent by name Jubaraj Sahu was in fact driving the vehicle when it was met with an accident. Mr. Jubaraj Sahu's driving licence which was issued in March, 1991 was valid for 20 years to drive a light motor vehicle. The Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim on the ground amongst two others that Jubaraj Sahu was authorised to drive a private car and not a taxi. The District Forum concurred with the Insurance Company and dismissed the original complaint and also observed that furnishing of wrong name of the driver amounted to breach of insurance contract.
3. In appeal, the State Commission took the view that there is no prohibition in the licence that Jubaraj Sahu could not drive a light motor vehicle which was used as a taxi. State Commission further held that the damage to the vehicle is beyond repair and accordingly directed payment of the entire sum insured i.e., Rs. 2,45,000/- with interest. This order is presently challenged before us.
4. The only question before us is whether Jubaraj who holds a valid licence issued for a period of 20 years for driving light motor vehicle can validly drive a taxi without such an endorsement on the licence, (a) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not define a taxi but it defines 'motor cab'--Section 2, Sub-section (25)--and it is clear that it is the same as taxi. The definition of 'motor cab' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for "hire or reward". Under Section 2(35) 'Public Service Vehicle' means 'any' motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a taxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage. Thus it is clear that "taxi" is a "public service vehicle". Section 2(47) defines a 'transport vehicle' as a "public service, vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institute bus or a private service vehicle". Each one of these words is separately defined under various clauses of Section 2 (Emphasis above is supplied by us). It is thus clear that a taxi is a "transport vehicle". (b) There is another classification of vehicles based or gross or un-laden weight as light, medium and heavy. The medium and heavy vehicles are sub-divided as goods vehicles or passenger vehicles. But no such subdivision is made in case of light vehicles. The definition of a "light motor vehicle" includes both transport vehicle and a motor car, (c) Section 3 clearly provides that "no person shall drive a transport vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. Thus it is clear that no person under the age of eighteen years can drive a transport vehicle (whatever be the weight of such vehicle -- light or medium or heavy), (d) Section 14 which provides for the period of licence says that a licence to drive a transport vehicle is effective for a period of three years and any other licence, would be effective for a period of 20 years (if the person is less than 50 years of age) or for five years (case of persons above fifty years), (e) Section 10(2) indicates a learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely :
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle.
5. Section 10, Clause (d) and Clause (e) mention that these two are distinct clauses thus clearly signifying that these two are mutually exclusive clauses. In this case, Jubaraj was issued a licence valid for 20 years. There is also no specific entitlement in the driving licence to drive a taxi. Obviously, it was not a licence to drive transport vehicle. Hence his act in driving a taxi was illegal and such driving was in contravention of the terms of the policy conditions. In our view, the Insurance Company was right in repudiating the claim. The Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside. No order as to costs.