Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.21 seconds)

Branch Manager United India Insurance ... vs A. Ramasamy S/O. Ettappnaicker ... on 9 December, 2011

12. In the policy, there is no prohibition in driving the vehicle, by a person, holding leaners license. As repeatedly held by the courts, as incorporated in the complaint itself, a driver, holding learners license would be a person duly licensed person, within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, and such a person is entitled to drive the vehicle, if driven, that cannot be treated as violation of conditions of policy, which is supported by the decision of National Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Ramesh Kumar (IV (2006) CPJ 460 NC). Realizing this, defense was taken as if there was no display that the vehicle was driven by LLR holder, displaying L, accompanied by a person knowing, driving. For all these averments, to prove except the plea, we do not have any materials. In the surveyors report though, it is said permanent LMV license holder was not driven alongwith driver, and L symbol was not affixed in the vehicle, and it is not known, on which basis this conclusion was reached. Even assuming that it is a violation, that is not the cause of the accident, to invalidate the policy. If the vehicle on its own, while driven by LLR holder, caused anything, it can be said there is a policy violation, whereas, in this case admittedly another lorry hit this vehicle, caused accident, thereby indicating LLR holder is not the case for the accident. Further, since it is not prohibited, that LLR holder is not entitled to drive the vehicle and LLR holder also duly authorized, to drive the vehicle, we conclude as rightly did by the District Forum, there is no violation of the policy, except this point, not other point was urged before us. The District Forum, considering all defense, has correctly come to the conclusion, awarded, compensation as per the personal accident coverage, to the limit of driver liability, with bearest minimum interest of 6%, since repudiated unjustifiably, which finding we are not willing to disturb, including the compensation, for mental agony and cost.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1