State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz ... vs Purama Ramesh S/O. Late Rama Rao ... on 15 October, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA 1064 of 2011 against CC 52/2011, Dist. Forum, Vizianagaram Between: The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vizianagaram. *** Appellant/ Opposite Party And Purama Ramesh S/o. Late Rama Rao R/o. Saluru Vizianagaram Dist. *** Respondent/ Complainant. Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for the Resp: M/s. MSR Subrahmanian CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER
MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 35,000/- together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he insured his cargo car with the appellant insurance company covering the period from 21.8.2008 to 20.8.2009. While so on 1.5.2009 it met with an accident and was damaged while he was driving the car. Basing on report the police registered it as a case by way of GD entry dt. 2.5.2009 and a fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed against him. He had taken the vehicle to Avinash Automobiles and got it repaired by spending Rs. 70,049/-. When the claim was made it was repudiated on the ground that the complainant was not having valid driving license. Assailing the repudiation he filed the complaint claiming Rs. 70,049/- with interest @ 24% p.a., together with compensation and costs.
3) The appellant insurance company resisted the case. While admitting that the vehicle was insured it denied that the complainant was having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was registered as GOODS CARRIAGE LMV and that the complainant was having driving license to drive motor-cycle gear/LMV (non-transport) license. He must possess LMV with transport endorsement. Therefore the claim was repudiated justifiably. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Ex. A1 to A6 marked while the appellant insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager (Legal-Claims) and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the driving license Ex. A6 of the complainant enables him to drive both transport as well as non-transport vehicles in the light of decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria reported in AIR 2008 SC 1418 the objection raised by the insurance company in this regard cannot be up-held. However, considering the charges incurred, directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 35,000/- together with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said order , the insurance company preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It failed to consider the decisions of Honble Supreme Court wherein it was observed if the driver did not have endorsement to drive commercial vehicle, may be an LMV, the insurance company was not liable to compensate him. Therefore it prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had taken the insurance policy covering the risk of his vehicle MARUTHI OMNI LPG CARGO a GOODS CARRIAGE LMV evidenced under Ex. B2 in Form-24 issued by Registering Authorities under the M.V. Act for a sum of Rs. 2,06,900/- covering the period from 21.8.2008 to 20.8.2009 vide policy Ex. A1. The classification was COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PACKAGE POLICY.
The complainant was holding driving license to drive LMV-(non-transport) vehicle. The endorsement that he was entitled to drive MTL was made on 18.8.2009 vide driving license Ex. B3. In other words he was having driving license only to drive non-transport LMV by the date of accident on 1.5.2009. The fact remains that by the date of accident he was not having driving license to drive transport vehicle. He had obtained it for the first time on 18.8.2009, long after the accident.
9) The moot question that arises for consideration is whether the license which he was having is valid to drive the vehicle in question?
10) At the outset, we may state that the this is not a third party claim where driving license of the driver may not have any significance. This is a claim made by the very insured for the damages sustained to his vehicle. The stipulation in the policy is that at the time when the accident took place the driver must have valid and effective driving license. When admittedly the driver was only having LMV (non-transport) and was not having any license for driving transport vehicle which in fact registered as transport commercial vehicle it must be held that it is a fundamental breach of terms of the policy. The driver holding license to drive non-transport vehicle cannot drive a transport vehicle. Necessarily he has to obtain an endorsement to that effect in his license. It is made clear in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhulal reported in I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) the Supreme Court observed :
In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.
We may state that the Supreme Court had relied two more decisions in the above Prabhulals case which we excerpt.
In the matter of Nasir Ahmed (SLP No. 7618 of 2005), the vehicle was a luxury taxi passenger carrying commercial vehicle.
There also the driving licence issued in favour of the driver was to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and hence the driver could not have driven the vehicle in question. In that case too, the licence was renewed for a period of twenty years i.e. from February 5, 2000 to February 4, 2020. Again, there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act. A specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company but the Authorities held the Insurance Company liable which could not have been done. The reasoning and conclusion arrived at by us in the matter of Prabhu Lal (SLP No. 7370 of 2004) would apply to the case of Nasir Ahmed. That appeal is, therefore, allowed.
In Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No. 17794 of 2004), the vehicle involved in accident was a Jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and in view of the fact that the driver was holding licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the vehicle in question. For the reasons recorded hereinabove in the main matter of Prabhu Lal i.e. SLP(C) No. 7370 of 2004, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable and that appeal also deserves to be allowed.
11) In the light of decision of Honble Supreme Court cited above, we are of the opinion that as the driver was not having requisite valid and effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. It is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as well provisions of M.V. Rules. We do not agree with the opinion expressed by the Dist. Forum.
12) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. However, no costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER 15/10/2012 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.