National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs B Satyajit Reddy And Ors. on 21 September, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Revision Petition No.2394 of 2006 (from the order dated 28.04.2006 in Appeal No. 908 of 2004 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Level 5, Tower II Jeevan Bharati 124, Cannaught Circus New Delhi 110 001 ........ Petitioner (s) Vs. Mr B Satyajit Reddy Son of Shri B Hanumanth Reddy Mr B Hanumanth Reddy Son of Shri Narayana Both Residents of Pavan Theatre Nizamabad Andhra Pradesh ..... Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS VINEETA RAI MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr G S Narula, Advocate For the Respondent NEMO Pronounced on 21st September, 2010 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Aggrieved by the order dated 28th April 2006, passed by the Andhra Padesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in Appeal No. 908 of 2004, which decided in favour of Shri B Satyajit Reddy and his father Shri B Hanumanth Reddy (Respondent No.1. and 2 in this case), the New India Assurance Company Ltd., - Petitioner in this case, have filed this revision petition.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 purchased an Ambassador Car under the taxi quota self-employment scheme and got it insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company from 26th March 1993 to 25th March 1994. On 29th August 1993, Respondents and their relatives were going to Hyderabad in the said car on personal work and Respondent No. 2 was driving the car. He lost control of the car due to heavy rains and the car fell by the side of the road and got badly damaged and causing injuries to its occupants. A report was lodged with the police and the car was kept in the workshop of M/s Venu Automobiles for repairs. A report about the accident was sent to the Petitioner Insurance Company who deputed a Surveyor. The Surveyor assessed the damage at Rs.55,000/-. This was acceptable to the Respondent. The Petitioner, however, repudiated the claim on the grounds that at the time of the accident the car was being driven by Respondent No. 2 who had a provisional driving license to drive light motor vehicle only and not transport vehicle together with P S V Badge. This was a violation of Section (b) of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, since, the driver i.e. Respondent No. 2 did not have a valid driving license as envisaged under Section 3 (1) of the M V Act and the same was confirmed by the Regional Transport Officer, Nizamabad, vide his letter dated 16th July 1994. The claim was rightly repudiated.
Aggrieved by this action, Petitioner in this case filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:
(1)Petitioner to pay Rs.55,000/- with interest @ 18% from 04.02.1994 to the Respondent towards the loss caused to the car; and (2) Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost.
The District Forum after hearing the arguments of both the parties vide its order dated 27th August 2003 dismissed the complaint with the following observations:
From a reading of the aforementioned definitions and Section 3 of M V Act, it is clear that the light motor vehicle is also a transport vehicle if used as a public service vehicle. In the present case since accident car is registered as per Ex. A3 under Taxi quota, it is undoubtedly a transport vehicle for public service. But under Section 3 of M V Act Sub Section (1) to drive a transport vehicle in a public place the driving license shall specifically authorize entitle the person driving the vehicle i.e. transport vehicle (emphasis added). It is seen from Ex. A2 driving license of the complainant No. 2 who was driving the accident car that there is no specific authorization entitling him to drive the accident vehicle, which is transport vehicle Ex. B2 Xerox memo dated 16.07.1994, the Regional Transport office, Nizamabad issued to the opposite party after verification of the driving license of the complainant No. 2 would go to show that in the case of a vehicle registered as Taxi Cab, the person driving such vehicle should possess light motor vehicle transport licenses together with P S V Badge until and unless the vehicle is converted as non transport and the said qualification to driver is warranted and there is no provision for exemption of this. From this also it is clear that the complainant no. 2 has no effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Ex. B1 policy condition No. (b) it is clear that the person driving the insured vehicle should possess effective driving license issued under Section 3 of M V Act and rules. In the present case, the accident car was driven by complainant no. 2 without specific authorization and P S V Badge from a competent licensing authority to drive the accident vehicle as required under Section 3 of M V Act. Therefore, it is a clear case of violation of condition
(b) of the Policy Ex. B1. Therefore, we are of the view that the repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant No. 1 under Ex. B1 policy for accident car by the opposite party is just and proper and not arbitrary. We are fortified in our view by the judgment reported in III (2003) CPJ 99 of NCDRC Delhi (New India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Ladu Kishore Sahu). We find this point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and against the complainant.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal on the grounds that since at the time of accident the car was not being used as a Taxi but for personal purpose by the Respondent, the fact that the driver was not having the license to drive a commercial vehicle alongwith P S V Badge is only a minor breach of license condition and does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny benefit of coverage of insurance. The relevant portion of the State Commissions order reads as follows:
In order to settle the claim it is only to be noted that the driver is having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. There is no nexus between the possession of P S V Badge and the accident. P S V Badge is necessary for the driver when the car is used as taxi and when the taxi given for hire. In the instant case, the owner, complainant No. 1 used the car on that day for his personal purpose and the care is not given to anybody for hire. For identification whether the driver is a taxi driver or not the badge is necessary. Possessing of P S V Badge is nothing to do with the perfection in the driving. The accident occurred due to slippery of the care due to heavy rains. Repudiating the claim on the ground that the driver is not possessing P S V Badge even though he is having valid driving license to drive the vehicle is illegal. The complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the damage caused to the vehicle during the accident and the opposite party is liable to pay that amount.
The State Commission while setting aside the order of the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs.55,000/- with interest @ 9% from 4th February 1994 till the date of payment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of complaint.
Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner Insurance Company has filed this present revision petition.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner appeared today and has given his written submission. None was present on behalf of the Respondent. We have carefully considered the evidence on record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the vehicle in question was purchased by Respondent No. 1 as a Taxi under the self-employment scheme and it was insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company as a transport vehicle. Facts regarding the accident are also not in dispute. It is also clear from a reading of section 3(1) of the M V Act that no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless the driving license specifically entitles him to do so. In other words, a driving license does not automatically permit a person to drive a transport vehicle in the absence of a specific authorization for the purpose. The contention of the Respondent is that at the time when the Respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle, it was not being used as a Taxi (transport vehicle) but was being driven for personal purpose. Therefore, the Respondent who had otherwise a valid driving license would be entitled to drive this vehicle when not being used as a taxi. The contention is not acceptable in view of the fact that the vehicle continued to be registered as a transport vehicle i.e., a Taxi for which a specific authorized license was a statutory necessity. Occasionally using it for a personal purpose cannot change these facts.
There are earlier rulings of the National Commission in support of this contention. This Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Ladu Kishore Sahu III (2003) CPJ 99 (NC), has held that Jubaraj was issued a license valid for 20 years. There is also no specific entitlement in the driving license to drive a taxi. Obviously, it was not a license 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.
In a subsequent judgment this Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Arvind Kumar Rajak III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC), has held that a driver having a license to drive the light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle without endorsement and if no such endorsement was found the insurance company cannot be ordered to pay compensation.
In view of all these facts we conclude that the Petitioner was right in repudiating the insurance claim of the Respondents. We therefore set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
.
[ Ashok Bhan., J ] President Sd/-
..
[ Vineeta Rai ] Member Satish