State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.R.K.Shrivastva vs New India Assu. on 30 July, 2016
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 2565 /2009.
DECIDED ON : 30 .7.2016.
Dr. R. K. Shrivastava,
r/o 21, Vaishali Nagar, Damoh.
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Saloman Complex, Post Box No.32,
Civil Ward No.3, Jabalpur Road,
Damoh (M.P).
....RESPONDENT.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI V. K. SAXENA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI MAHAVIR BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT.
ORDER
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Rakesh Saksena, J. :
Appellant / complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24.11.2009 passed by District Forum, Damoh in CC No.126/2008 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Dr. R. K. Shrivastava had been the owner of Maruti Car having registration No. MP 34 C 0462. This car was insured with the respondent / New India Assurance -2- Company Ltd. for the period from 14.11.2006 to 13.11.2007. On 28.8.2007 when complainant by his car was going from Damoh a Tempo Trax vehicle dashed his car as a result of which car was badly damaged. The car was being driven by a driver Shivram Patel, who held licence No.2819/Jhansi/1998 issued by RTO, Jhansi. Mechanic gave an estimate of Rs.1 lac for the repairs of the car. On complainant's lodging his claim with the Insurance Company, the Company by letter dated 2.6.2008 repudiated the same saying that licence of driver Shivram Patel was fake and it was not issued by RTO, Jhansi. Aggrieved by the repudiation, complainant approached to District Forum, Damoh claiming compensation of Rs.1 lac and other reliefs.
3. The Insurance Company averred that the driver Shivram Patel, who at the time of accident was driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The Insurance Company had got an enquiry conducted from the Divisional Transport Officer, Jhansi which revealed that his licence was not issued from RTO Jhansi. Since the vehicle was being driven against the terms and conditions of the policy and against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company committed no deficiency of service in repudiating the claim. Learned District Forum after appreciating the evidence on record held that since the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of appellant.
4. Shri V.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant argued that in a criminal case registered against the driver of Tempo Trax, learned Magistrate found that the accident resulted due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle, therefore, learned Forum committed error in holding repudiation justified on the basis of defect in the licence of appellant's driver. We are afraid the argument advanced by learned counsel cannot be accepted. In -3- the case of insurance claim, validity of licence of the driver is the basic necessity. If the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the conditions of the policy, the claim lodged by the complainant cannot be honoured on the ground that there had been no negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Forum committed error in placing reliance on the document, Ex. R/1, the letter dated 8.9.2008 sent by Public Information Officer, Divisional Transport Office, Jhansi to Shri R. C. Pandey, Advocate to the effect that the licence of driver Shivram Patel was not issued from RTO, Jhansi. It is relevant to note that in response to query by this Commission also, Divisional Transport Officer, Jhansi sent a verification report on 22.3.2014 stating that licence No.2819/JHS/98 had not been issued from RTO Jhansi. In these circumstances, we find no substance in the submission of learned counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that since the licence of driver Shivram Patel was upgraded by addition of medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle, it is to be deemed that he had been granted a new driving licence in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The submission made by learned counsel is misconceived. He seems to have misconstrued the provisions of section 11 (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act postulates necessity of holding an effective driving licence for a person to drive a motor vehicle in any public place. Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the procedure for obtaining the driving licence. Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for addition of other class or description of a motor vehicle to the licence already held by a person. Sub-section (2) of section 11 provides that the provisions of section 9 shall apply to the application for addition of other class of vehicle as if the said application was for the grant of a licence under that section to drive the -4- class or description of the motor vehicle which applicant desired to be added to his existing licence. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that altogether a new licence has been granted. Even otherwise, when the licence held by a person is fake or void ab initio, the addition of other class of vehicle to that licence would confer no validity to the fake licence. In the instant case, had RTO Jhansi permitted addition of other classes of vehicles to the existing licence of Shivram Patel, it would have certainly mentioned the said addition in its verification report dated 22.3.2014 sent to this Commission.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the learned District Forum committed no error in holding that the vehicle of the complainant at the time of accident was being driven by person who held no valid licence to drive and that driving of the vehicle by said person contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The impugned order passed by the Forum is therefore upheld, and there being no substance in the appeal, it is dismissed.
(Justice Rakesh Saksena) (Smt. Neerja Singh)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke