State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, M/S. The New India ... vs Mr. R. Subramani, No.18, K.V.R. Nagar ... on 11 June, 2013
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.J. JAYARAM, Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, Member
F.A.No.389/2012
(F.A.No.85/2012 on the file of State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Chennai.)
(Against the order in C.C.No.25/2006 on the file of DCDRF, Ramanathapuram)
TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF JUNE 2013.
The Branch Manager,
M/s. The New India Assurance Co.,Ltd.,
No.148, Salai Road,
Ramanathapuram. Appellant/Opposite party.
Vs
Mr. R. Subramani,
No.18, K.V.R. Nagar West,
Thiruppur - 2. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellant/opposite party: Mr.K. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
For Respondents /Complainant: - Paper publication effected. Called absent
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 05.06.2013 and on
hearing the arguments of the appellant/opposite party and upon perusing the
material records, this Commission made the following:
ORDER
Thiru. J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
2
1. The appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Ramanathapuram in C.C.No.25/2006, dated 12.05.2011 allowing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he owned a open EICHER transport vehicle/goods carriage bearing registration No. TN-65-C-1938 which got involved in a traffic accident on 25.06.2005 and the vehicle was severely damaged. The vehicle had been insured with the opposite party and so he made a claim with the opposite party seeking compensation towards damages to the vehicle and the claim was repudiated by the opposite party, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from the value of the bill of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the insurance policy with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay costs.
3. According to the opposite party, the driver of the vehicle who drove the vehicle at the time of accident did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive that vehicle which is a transport vehicle/goods carriage. Hence, the complainant's claim was rightly repudiated for violation of policy conditions. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3
4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in rejecting the legitimate claim of the complainant and passed an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim till realization and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and to pay another sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.
5. The contention of the appellant/opposite party is that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and proper driving licence to drive the transport vehicle/goods carriage and there is violation of policy condition and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation for the damages to the vehicle and so the claim was repudiated for proper and valid reasons and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
6. Per contra, the respondent/complainant would contend that the driver of the vehicle is his own son and he possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive transport vehicles. However, there are no materials placed before us to establish that the deceased driver had a proper and valid licence to drive transport vehicle. There is no evidence on record to conclude that the deceased driver possessed a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle which got involved in the accident.
4
7. The appellant/opposite party has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in III (2012) CPJ 589 (NC) in the case of Ajmer Singh - Vs - New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., & Anr wherein it has been held as follows: Insurance - Accident of motor vehicle - Driver not authorized to drive said vehicle - Claim repudiated - District Forum allowed complaint - State Commission allowed appeal - Hence, revision - Vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle, has seating capacity of 9 + 1 - It was being driven by unauthorized person - Complainant not entitled for any compensation, on account of damages of his vehicle, as he had handed over his vehicle to a person who was not competent to drive said vehicle ". The appellant/opposite party further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., - Vs - Prabhu Lal reported in I (2008) ACC 54 (SC) wherein it has been held as follows: (i) Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Driving licence - Validity of - Transport vehicle involved in accident - Driver holding driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), not entitled to ply Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV)/transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement - Claim repudiated by Insurance Company - Complaint filed before District Forum dismissed - Forum held, complainant not entitled to compensation on basis of evidence adduced by Insurance Company - Order of Forum set aside in appeal - State Commission held Insurance Company liable to pay compensation - Revision against order of State Commission dismissed by National Commission - Civil appeal filed - Vehicle driven by person 5 not authorized to drive transport vehicle proved by FIR and other documents produced on record - Vehicle covered under category of transport vehicle proved
- Conclusion arrived at by District Forum not faulty - State and National Commission committed error in holding Insurance Company liable - Orders of State and National Commission set aside - Order of District Forum restored.
(ii) Driving licence - Validity of - Passenger carrying commercial vehicle involved in accident - Driver holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, not entitled to drive vehicle in question - Endorsement as required by Section 3, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not made - Insurance Company not liable - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 3 r/w Rule 16 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1986.
8. The District Forum has based its finding on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd., VII (1999) SLT 317=III (1999) CPJ 5 (SC)=(1999) 6 SCC 620, which is dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. (New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., - Vs Prabhu Lal).
9. Therefore, we hold that the driver drove transport vehicle in question without valid licence and without proper endorsement to drive transport vehicle/ goods carriage and as such there is violation of policy condition that the driver should possess a proper, valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the benefits under the policy.
10. The District Forum has allowed the complaint holding that the driver of the vehicle possessed proper and valid driving licence to drive a transport 6 vehicle/ goods carriage. The finding of the District Forum is erroneous and there is infirmity in the order and the order is not sustainable.
10. In view of our finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in this appeal.
The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt made by the opposite party/appellant towards mandatory deposit after duly discharged.
S. SAMBANDAM, J. JAYARAM,
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER