State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Ins Co vs Ishwarkumar M Somnani on 29 July, 2011
1:? IN THE CONS.L_YMERVID"ISPUT.ES REDRESSAL CDMMISSIQN ~GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD APPEAL No. 1 1 96 or 201 0 National In$uranC.e Ca. Ltd, through 'its Auth. 'Signatory Regional, Oflice Dr. Indumati Patel Trust Building V V _ Baroda 390 001 Appe--11an.t versus Ishwarkumar Mohanlai wsemvnani Shri 'Swami Lilasha Stores Nr. Old Bus Stand Giodhra Panchmahal ' Respondent BEFORE: Justice R.P.LDhulakia, President Shri ~S.A. Makhija', Member' Sxint. Jyoti.P. Jani, Member
Appearance:
Mrs. 'R413. Trivedi,_. Advocateifdr the Appellant ORDER; [By Smt. Jy0ti.P. Jami, Memrber] The éégppellant has prefer:-ed 'this appeal against the order of' Consumer Diisputes Redressal Farum, Panchmahbal dated 29,7.'2_O:10'pas,sed in C_Orisumer*Co.mp1a;int No. 228 Qf 2007. The-. appellant -is the original eppanent and; Lthe responds-.nt. is the original camplainant and they are referred to as such. in their in-iginal nomenciature for the sake of cofivenienee.
21. Short facts of the complainant's icase are that complainant was owner ormaxuu van bearing 'registration No. C}J--17.'-X-9575.
The said vehicle' was insured with the o'p'ppnentL National Insurance Company having Own Damage Insurance; The 'peficy number of the vehicle; is 9364-94=--.22. The complain-ant': carmet with an' accident on '7l..5.2006- and damage to the vehicle was ascertained at R~s..89,,I437.42. Complainant filled up the claim' form and all relevant docum'ents were submitted in the insurance company' in isupportj 'of the claim, The Qpjponent insurance company,-- after" making survey' of the vehicle, reliudiated the claim of the com--pIainaI1'.C on '5.S.2OD.'-7 infcrming that the driver 9f the vehicle did not; have valid licence to drivc LMV-transport vehicle. The District Forum, c0--'nsi'de'1'ing the R13. Book, cajne to the conclusion that the vehicle is .d<-;=s<':i7ribed as .L1'ght 'Motor Vehicle (LMV)" having weight of 7570 kg. The D'1St1TiG,t Fflrum. bbserved that looking at the document 0'f1l--icence., driver was holding LMV licence which is considered to be a valid» licence to drive the vehicle in question and the gcmplaint was partly allowed.
3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this' order, the Cipponent intsurance' company has filed the present: appeal lbeforel this. Con1mis:si0n.. lPro:cess was issued to the; c0mplainan~t and the same was duly served. However, the complainant has not chosen to remain: present b§:fore~ the Commiésion either in 'person or through an advocatm We have therefore heard the Id. advcaeate for the' Opponent insurance com'pa'n'y at length.
4 Now, as far as the? legal pasitionj and merits of the case are concerned, the; main contention raised,-_ by the opponent is regarding the driver holiiing LMV licencersnd net holding licence to -drive LMV.-ltransport vehicle and on that very ground the in.sur'ance_compar1y repudiated the claim '0f'the complainant. The Oppflnfint has: referredi to a decision' of the; honourable Supreme Court in the caste of New India Assurance Company Limited; vs. Pra5b'hu1a.I reported in I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC). The Head-notes read 'vehicle by person.no't authorised to drive transport vehicle proved by F:IR- and ojthe'r document produced on record -- vefhicle covered 'under category of .transport vehicle proved'. 'Motor ._V , Accident claim -- passenger Carrying commercial vehicle' involvgad in --accident - Driver helding litzence to dfive light 'motor vehicle, not entitled to drivgr vehicle} in question - endorsement as required by Section :3, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 not made -- Insurance company not.Iiab.le.'. A 5 In "thencase: on hand, thc; ?d'0c,um.en'ts'4 an record show that the licence issued in -favaur of the driver was for light rnotqr vehicle and not far LMV--trans~port vehicle,
-5 In Vi€W 0? the above scited p'ronouneemen't of the honourable Supreme Court, the finding of the Dis--1:ri'i;:t'_ Peru-in. that simple ficence: for driving Light Motor Vehicle '('LMC} was sufficient to drive transport vehicle is 'improper and mquires to be fnterferedv With,.. A person holding LMV (ir'iving'1ic:ence cannot drive LMV 'transport: vehic1.e.. Hencze-, we pass the_ ~fo'1lowing;finai order. ORDER Appeal No'.1'196 of 201'ois.a11owed.,. Order _da_te'd 29_;'7_.2o_10 rendered in Complaint, N9. 228 of 200-?' by the Constumer Disputes Retlressal 'Forum, Paigchmahal is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Pronnunced in the open court on this aq day of '3Lt\:;} ,, 201 1. ' ' }odwMM [R.P, Dholakial President [Jyctii 1:2. Jam] Member 3 Vi\!I<;.*'1:uber Di-'jxfiayérfl.