Abdul Saleem vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS Appeal is by the Appellant/ Complainant challenging the Order dated 8. 2. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bangalore Urban I Additional, in Complaint No. 3117/2006, by which the District Forum has dismissed his Complaint.

THE complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No. KA-0l/ac 7860. The said vehicle was insured with the Respondent/opposite party (for short, "op") for the period from 30. 11. 2005 to 29. 11. 2006. The vehicle met with an accident on 8. 2. 2006. In the said accident, the vehicle suffered certain damage. The fact of the accident was intimated by the Complainant to the OP. The OP in turn appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed the loss and submitted a Report. In the meanwhile, the OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have valid Driving Licence to drive "goods Vehicle", Challenging the rejection of the claim, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum accepting the case of the OP has dismissed the Complaint. This Order is under challenge by the Complainant in this Appeal. The vehicle in question is a "medium Goods Vehicle". It is not in dispute that the Driver did have a valid Driving Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle for the period from 26. 5. 2000 to 25. 5. 2020 and he had also obtained an Indorsement to drive "goods Vehicl" and "maxi Gab" for the period from 22. 2. 2005 to 21. 2. 2008 as seen from the Driving Licence. Therefore, as on the date of the accident, the Driver did have a Licence to drive Goods Vehicle.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the OP submitted that since the Complainant did not have a Driving Licence to drive "medium Goods Vehicle" as on the date of the accident, the OP is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court dated 30. 11. 2007 in Civil Appeal No. 5539/2007 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)=ix (2007) SLT 841=i (2008) ACC 54 (SC ). The Apex Court in the said decision has observed that if a Driver did not have a Valid Driving Licence to drive the Vehicle as on the date of the accident, it is open for the Insurance Company to avoid its liability to pay any compensation. In our view, the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case for the following reasons: the vehicle in question is a "goods Vehicle", whether Medium Goods Vehicle or otherwise. But if we take the unladen weight of the vehicle, it is classified as "light Motor Vehicle. " In order to know whether the Vehicle in question is a Light Motor Vehicle, it is necessary to refer to the definition of Light Motor Vehicle and Medium Gdods Vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 2 (21) defines that "light Motor Vehicle" means "a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. " "medium Goods Vehicle" as defined under Section 2 (24) of the Motor Vehicles Act means "any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle". In the instant case, if we take into account the unladen weight of the vehicle in question, it is a Light Motor Vehicle, since its unladen weight is 4,180 kilograms.

IT is not in dispute that the Driver did have a Driving Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. In addition to this, the Driver also possessed Indorsement to drive Goods Vehicle and Maxi Cab. Therefore, the District Forum was not right in accepting the defence put forth by the OP. In our view, for the reasons stated above, the OP was not justified in repudiating the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Driver did not have a Valid Driving Licence, to drive the vehicle in question. The Complainant in his Complaint has claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. The Surveyor appointed by the OP has inspected the vehicle and has assessed the loss at Rs. 1,86,408. The Complainant has not produced any acceptable evidence to show that he is entitled for more compensation than what has been determined by the Surveyor. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable evidence adduced by the Complainant it is safe to rely upon the Report of the Surveyor. Hence, we are of the view that the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,86,468 which is rounded off to Rs. 1,86,500, from the OP.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. (2) The Complaint filed by the Complainant before the District Forum is allowed in part directing the OP to pay Rs. 1,86,500 to the Complainant as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the Complaint filed before the District Forum till realization. (3) Parties to bear their own costs.

Appeal allowed.