Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs RAJAMANOHAR

THE opposite party appeals.

THE facts of the case are as follows : THE complainant is the owner of an Ambassador car taxi. He engaged one Sayeram as driver to drive the taxi which is covered by a valid insurance policy with the opposite party. THE taxi met with an accident on 19.8.1995. THE driver died in the accident. THE taxi sustained heavy damages which the opposite party estimated at Rs. 30,000/-. When the claim for repair expenses was made, the opposite party rejected it, on the basis that the driver did not have the necessary licence to drive the taxi. Aggrieved by that course of action the complainant approached the District Forum with the following prayers : "to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards cost of repairs, loss, mental torture and agony alongwith the cost of the complaint".

Before the District Forum the opposite party reiterated the plea that the claim cannot be allowed inasmuch as the driver was not having the required licence.

The District Forum found that the driver has produced to the complainant his driving licence as well as an endorsement authorising him to drive the taxi with effect from 29.6.1993 by the Licensing Authority, Pondicherry. It is true that the opposite party challenged that endorsement, but they have not substantiated their challenge by examining the Licensing Authority of Pondicherry before the District Forum, Pondicherry. So as the matter stood before the Forum, the driver had shown to the complainant a valid licence which he was bound to believe. Further the District Forum placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kohilaban Chandravadan and Others, 1987 (2) SCR 752, came to the conclusion that the violation of a condition or infringement should be intentional and that in the present case there was nothing to show that the owner of the taxi was aware that that the licence of the driver was not proper one. Accordingly, the District Forum passed the following orders; The opposite party shall pay to the complainant : (1) the expenses incurred by the complainant for repair of his vehicle PY-01-C-3164 damaged in the accident on 19.8.1995 at about 9.00 p.m.as per the bills produced by him alongwith the claim application form to the opposite party; (2) Rs. 300/-as cost. (3) the amount shall be paid within a month from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the same shall carry an interest @ 12% p.a.

BEFORE this Commission, the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend again that the driver did not have a valid licence to drive the taxi on the date of accident. The driver is no more. A xerox copy of the endorsement by the Licensing Authority, Pondicherry to the effect that the driver was having licence to drive taxi was produced before the Forum. The opposite party who challenged it failed to substantiate the challenge. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the driver had the valid licence. Even otherwise the right of the insurance person to get the amount of insurance would be based on his conduct. One has to find out whether the owner of the taxi has acted as a prudent man while entrusting the taxi to the driver Sayeram. He was in need of a driver as a substitute. Sayeram has produced a xerox copy of the licence which apparently did not disclose any defect and, therefore, the owners of the taxi bona fide accepted the licence. One cannot expect me owner of the vehicle to suspect each and every endorsement and get the same confirmed by the Regional Transport Office before engaging a driver. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out in the xerox copy of the endorsement any defect which should have raised doubt in the mind of the owner. Therefore, we find that the owner of the vehicle who has acted bona fide and after taking the necessary precautions cannot be deprived of the insurance amount for any hypothetic defect in the licence.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant who strenuously argued the matter would contend that the complainant was aware of the defect of the licence, since he himself averred in the complaint that the driver had forged the endorsement. To appreciate this contention, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant sentences, which read as follows : "the complainant due to the shortage of time was forced to believe the xerox copy of the driving licence of the said driver Sayeram with his photograph, but wherein, he had forged the endorsement of authorisation to drive "Tourist Taxi". THErefore, the complainant cannot be penalised for the fraudulent act of the deceased driver P. Sayeram by the opposite party repudiating the claim of the complainant".

THE learned Counsel for the complainant would state that this statement was made in reply to the statement made by the opposite party in the counter to the lawyer''s notice of the complainant.. THE purpose of the statement was only to state that the facts alleged by the opposite party was not known to the complainant, and that the complainant cannot be held responsible for them. It is true that the complainant should have worded his statement in a more careful manner to make his position explicit. English being a foreign language, the complainant cannot be penalised for not expressing himself with 100% accuracy. If the sentence is read carefully, it is clear that the complainant was not aware of the defect in the licence, as alleged by the opposite party. This contention fails. In theresult, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed. _______________