State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Ramesh Kumar on 28 February, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
F. A. No. No: 286/2009
Date
of Decision: 28.02.2012.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company,
Sahib Complex, 1st floor, Plot No.118/9,
College Road, Mandi, H.P.
Through its Branch Manager.
Appellant
Versus
Shri Ramesh Kumar S/O
Shri Bhag Chand,
R/O Village-Tholang,
P.O. Malang, Tehsil Keylong,
District Lauhal
Spiti, H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble
Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant: Mr.
Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sat Parkash,
Advocate vice
Mr.
Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President (Oral) This appeal by the opposite party, i.e., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 8th June, 2009, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby allowing the complaint of respondent-Ramesh Kumar, a sum of `2,79,765/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, has been ordered to be paid by the appellant to the respondent on account of own damage claim.
2. Admitted facts are that a transport vehicle (light goods vehicle) bearing registration No.HP-42-0529, Bolero camper, owned by the complainant was insured with the appellant for own damage for the period from 23.10.2007 to 22.10.2008. On 02.12.2007, during the currency of the insurance policy, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and was totally damaged. Vehicle was being driven by one Ramesh Kumar, who possessed a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport). On being apprised of the accident by the complainant, appellant deputed a surveyor, who assessed the damage as total loss. Appellant, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that Ramesh Kumar, who was on the wheel of the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the accident, did not possess a valid driving licence.
3. Complaint was filed by the respondent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu. Accepting the plea of the appellant that Ramesh Kumar, did not possess a licence to drive transport vehicle, District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to only 75% of the insured amount of money, by treatment of his claim as non-standard claim. Appellant is aggrieved by this order of the District Forum and has filed the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that since Ramesh Kumar did not possess a licence to drive transport vehicle, as his licence authorized him to drive only a light motor vehicle (non-transport), this is a case of fundamental and material breach of law. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel upon an order of the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.4055 of 2010, titled New India Assurance Company Ltd., versus Smt. Meera Banolta, decided on 11.04.2011.
6. In the aforesaid precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, transport vehicle was being driven by a person possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport). The Honble National Commission held that driving of the light transport vehicle by a person possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) amounted to violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thus it was fundamental and material breach of law. The Insurance policy in the case conditions that the vehicle would be driven only by a person duly licensed to drive it. Since, Ramesh Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the accident did not possess licence to drive a licenced vehicle, though he had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport), this is a case of fundamental or material breach of law and hence the claimant, in view of the aforesaid precedent, is not entitled to any claim.
7. Consequently, appeal is allowed, impugned order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
8. Disposed of.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) {Retd.} President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member February 28, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?