Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 16 February, 2012
5. We
have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The State Commission, after a careful
examination of the facts of this case and after examining the Licence Clerk of
the Theog Licencing Authority came to the conclusion
that the licence possessed by Rajeev Hetta had been
endorsed for HGV with effect from 20.04.2002, which was valid for three
years. The licence was also endorsed for
LMV-Transport with effect from 07.6.2003, which was also valid for three
years. The accident had taken place on
02.02.2006, on which date the licence for HGV had expired, but it remained
valid for LMV-Transport. It is clear
therefore, that the driver had a valid and effective licence. However, it is also clear from the facts on
record that the temporary registration of the vehicle done by the Registration
Authority of UT, Chandigarh had expired on 11.01.2006. At the time of accident on 02.02.2006, the
vehicle was being driven without registration, which is prohibited under
Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is also an offence under Section
192 of the said Act. The State
Commission have rightly quoted the judgements given by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission in Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as report in II (2012) CPJ 189 (NC), saying that
the damaged vehicle, although insured, is not entitled to claim indemnification
under the insurance policy.