National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Abrar Ahmed Ansari vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 8 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ288(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.5.2004 of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal allowing appeal against the order dated 28.8.2003 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent-Insurance Company to settle the claim and pay the settled amount with interest @ 7% p.a. from 12.8.2002.
2. In nutshell, facts giving rise to this revision are these. Matador bearing No. MP-09-KB-3851 owned by the petitioner/complainant was insured with the respondent/opposite party for Rs. 2,50,000. During the currency of policy, on 5.1.2002 the matador met with an accident at Tok-Kala while transporting goods from Indore to Mohan Badodia. Amount of Rs. 75,000 was allegedly to have been incurred on repairs of the matador by the petitioner. On claim made being repudiated by Insurance Company on 12.8.2002 on ground of driver of matador not having a valid licence to run transport vehicle, the petitioner filed complaint which was contested by the respondent by filing written version on the ground of which claim was repudiated by the letter dated 12.8.2002.
3. We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Sharma for petitioner and Mr. Ram Ashray for respondent.
4. Copy of survey report dated 18.1.2002 (filed on 25.7.2006) would show that the driver was possessing Light Motor Vehicle (personal) driving licence. Admittedly, matador in question was being used as commercial vehicle at the time of accident. Decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai II (2006) ACC 19 (SC) : 11 (2006) CPJ 8 (SC), rendered by the Supreme Court has a bearing in this case. In this decision driver of the jeep used as a taxi was granted licence for driving light motor vehicle. Stand taken by the Insurance Company was that it was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing driving licence for running commercial vehicle. Claim was by a third party. Considering various decisions rendered by the Apex Court itself noticed in the judgment, the Court held that in a case of this nature the owner of vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not. In concluding para No. 16 of the decision (at page 13 of the report) it was held:
although we are of the opinion that the appellant was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, we decline to interfere with the impugned award, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but we direct that the appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nnnjappan (supra).
5. Applying the ratio of this decision to the facts of present case, the respondent-Insurance Company was fully justified in repudiating the claim on ground of driver who was possessing licence for L.M.V. (personal) not holding a valid licence to drive a matador used for commercial purpose.
6. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. No order as to cost.