National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kanakalakshmi vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 21 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)CPJ118(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 6/96 on 8th January, 1999. The facts of the case are as follows:
2. The petitioner, Mrs. Kanakalakshmi purchased a new Maruti Omni from Mondovi Motors Limited with financial assistance from Karnataka State Finance Corporation on 15.2.1993. The vehicle had the coverage of Comprehensive Insurance from Oriental Insurance Company Limited on payment of premium of Rs. 3,331/- for a period of one year from 15.2.1993 to 14.2.1994. During the currency of the insurance, the vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.1993. Immediately, thereafter she filed her claim with the Insurance Company towards damages. The company permitted her to get the vehicle repaired at Mondovi Workshop. The Surveyor inspected the same and after 3 1/2 months the insurance company wrote to her repudiating her claim on the ground that the driver's licence held by the driver was not specifically endorsed to drive this vehicle.
3. The petitioner filed a case before the District Forum and sought for a direction to the O.P. to pay her a sum of Rs. 45,766.28 that she had claimed, along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, interest at 21% p.a. on the claim amount and reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 35,000/- describing it as the amount of interest she had paid on the loans Obtained by her from her friends and others at 25% p.a. as detailed in the relief para of her complaint.
4. The case was heard by the District Forum which held that his vehicle was admittedly used as a taxi and the driver was not having a badge to drive a taxi. The insured had violated insurance conditions and accordingly there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Insurance Company. The District Forum recorded a finding that the said driver was not holding effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence the complaint was dismissed.
5. Mrs. Kanakalakshmi went in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that "it is needless to say that unless and until the exact requirement reflected in Section 3 is complied with strictly, the driver cannot be said to have an effective driving licence. We are, therefore, not inclined to agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to take a view different from the one taken by the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed".
6. Mrs. Kanakalakshmi has filed a Revision Petition before us. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Pankaj Bala Verma, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Joy Basu, Counsel for the respondent were heard on 9.3.2005.
7. Only point for consideration in this Petition is about the compliance of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows:
3. Necessity for driving licence-(1) No person shall drive a motor 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.
8. This section has two parts, (i) no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. Undisputedly the driver was having effective driving licence on the date of accident.
9. Second, part of the section reads as follows:
"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".
(Emphasis added) This second part of section is not applicable to the motor cab or motor cycle. This means that no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitled to do so but exclusion is carved out for motor cycle and motor cab. In the licence, driver particulars indicate against badge No. NA-not applicable. As has been defined under Section 2(25) of the Motor Vehicles Act, "motorcab" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.
10. The vehicle in question is a Maruti Omni-1993 which is a light motor vehicle. It can carry a maximum of six passengers excluding the driver and it was used as a cab. It is not the case of the Insurance Co. that it is a maxi cab which has the capacity to carry 10 or more persons. It is also not the case of the Insurance Co. that it is a goods carriage. In the vehicle particulars, area of operation has also mentioned as Karnataka State and the driver has a permanent licence.
11. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission and partly allow the Revision Petition. The petitioner may be paid a sum of Rs. 38,648/- from the date of the report of the Surveyor with 9% interest thereon within four weeks of this Order. Parties to bear their own costs.