National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Thomas Mathew vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 24 May, 2006
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Presiding Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant was the owner of a carriage bus which he had purchased in 1991, which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company for Rs, 7.50 lakh for the relevant period. During this period the vehicle met with an accident on 14.5.1996 while it was carrying a marriage party and it was hit by a train on an unmanned level crossing, resulting in death of 37 passengers including the driver. The occurrence of accident was reported to the police as also to the respondent. Spot survey was carried out, who submitted his report but when the matter was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that on the date of accident the driver was not having effective and valid driving licence thus, falling under General Exception Clause 3 of the insurance policy. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.
3. There is 82 days delay in filing the appeal which is sought to be condoned on the ground that the complainant was not having good health and that's why he could not file the appeal in time. Even though, we are not satisfied with this explanation yet we go on to pass the orders on merits.
4. A plea on the part of the appellant/complainant has been taken that he did not get a chance to be present or lead evidence. The State Commission order clearly notices that "the case was posted for evidence on 21.3.1997 but on that date the complainant was not ready and we posted the case as last chance for 11.4.1997. On that date also as the complainant was not ready we adjourned the case for today, i.e., 9.5.1997. But today also neither the complainant nor his Counsel was present." In view of these circumstances, we see no merit in the plea taken by the appellant that he did not get a chance to lead evidence. There is also no disputing the fact, that the O.P. had filed affidavit and produced the relevant documents.
5. We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length. The only question for us is whether the driver of the ill-fated vehicle had an effective driving licence or not? There is no disputing the fact that the vehicle met with an accident on 14.5.1996 whereas the licence of the driver had expired on 12.4.1996. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that an application for renewal to be made within 30 days of the date of expiry. No application was made within the stipulated period. In any case, position of law is that the licence would be effective prospectively and not retrospectively.
6. In the aforementioned circumstances, the State Commission committed no error in returning the finding that there was no valid licence with the driver to drive the vehicle as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act on 14.5.1996. The State Commission has also considered the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has rightly concluded that even if benefit of 30 days from 12.4.1996 is given, in case he had applied for renewal of licence, even then on the date of accident, i.e., 14.5.1996, the driver did not have any valid driving licence, thus, falling under the General Exception clause of the policy which mandates the driver to hold an effective and valid driving licence falling which the claim was not to be payable.
7. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the State Commission either on the facts or law, calling for our interference.
8. This appeal has no merit, which is dismissed.