Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs V.M.JOSEPH

THIS appeal arises from the order in O.P. No. 868 of 1997 of the District Forum, Ernakulam. The opposite party is the appellant. The complainant''s grievance before the District Forum was that his Maruti Car bearing Registration No. KL-7/Q- 6024 which was insured with a comprehensive policy with the opposite party for the period from 18.3.1997 to 17.3.1998, the vehicle met with an accident on 16.8.1997. He undertook the repair works at Indus Motors Company Limited and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 4,003.40. He intimated the opposite party as to the said accident and putforth the claim. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that at the relevant point of time the complainant had no valid driving licence. He therefore filed the complaint. The opposite party filed their version reiterating the aforesaid stand. After considering the (sic.) against the plea raised by the complainant and the opposite party, the District Forum directed the opposite party/Insurance Company to consider the claim of the complainant on merit, quantify the compensation and disburse the amount with 12% interest per annum from 4.9.1997. It also fixed time limit of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order for complying with the aforesaid direction. Cost was also awarded to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said direction the opposite party has come up in appeal.

THE insurance policy was valid for the period from 18.3.1997 to 17.3.1998. Since the accident took place on 16.8.1997, it was during the currency of the insurance policy. THE complainant had a driving licence enabling him to drive light motor vehicle from 23.7.1995 to 16.12.1996. His case is, though he applied for renewal within 30 days of expiry of the licence, since he had crossed 60 years of age he had to produce Medical Certificate which he had not produced alongwith the application for renewal; so he had to apply again for renewal of the same and it was renewed with effect from 20.5.1997 till 19.5.2002. From the aforesaid admitted fact it is clear that on 16.8.1997 when the accident took place, the complainant was not having an effective valid licence to drive the vehicle. It is precisely on this ground the appellant repudiated the claim of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that, since the conditions of the policy insist that the Insurance Company can repudiate the claim if the vehicle was driven by a person who has no effective licence, the District Forum went wrong in making the aforesaid direction. It was urged by the learned Counsel that, since admittedly the complainant was not possessing an effective licence for driving the vehicle that itself is opposed to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as per conditions of the policy the Insurance Company will stand exonerated because at the relevant time the complainant was not having effective licence to drive the vehicle. The learned Counsel also referred to the decision of this Commission reported in III (1997) CPJ 90, Thomas Mathew v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. in support of the aforesaid contention. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent maintained relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in II (1996) CPJ 28 (SC), B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., unless the insured was responsible for the accident and if the accident occurred as a result of collision even though for the relevant time the vehicle was being driven by a person who has no effective licence at that time, the exclusion clause will not apply. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Commission reported in I (1998) CPJ 63, Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lekhiram. Reference was also made to the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 1114/1997 wherein this Commission relying on the decision in II (1996) CPJ 28 (SC) held that, since he has not in any way contributed to the accident the Insurance Company will not get exonerated. The learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard sought to distinguish the decision in Nagaraju''s case, (supra), referred to earlier, by pointing out, the said decision was rendered in a matter where the goods vehicle carried 9 persons where the permit limit was 6. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel the facts in the said decision is distinguishable.

In the said decision the Supreme Court adverted to the question whether the terms of the policy of insurance need be construed strictly or be read down to advance the main purpose of the contract as viewed by the Court. Adverting to the view taken by the National Commission, the Supreme Court observes : "The National Commission went for the strict construction of the exclusion clause. The reasoning that the extra passengers being carried in the goods vehicle could not have contributed in any manner, to the occurring of the accident, was barely noticed and rejected sans any plausible account; even when the claim confining the damage to the vehicle only was limited in nature. We, thus, are of the view that in accord with the Skandia''s case, the aforesaid exclusion terms of the insurance policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy that is indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle, which we hereby do".

The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Nagaraju''s case cannot confined to the facts of that case; the crucial point to be looked into in the said circumstances would be whether the non- possession of an effective licence by the driver has contributed to the occurrence. If the driver of the vehicle though was not in possession of an effective licence, the occurrence ensured because of some other vehicle collided with it, it may not be justifiable to pronounce that the Insurance Company would stand exonerated merely because the driver was not having effective licence at that particular point of time. There is no question justifying the person driving the vehicle without enforceable licence. This Forum is concerned with the conditions in the policy by which the Insurance Company will get exonerated. We find that this aspect was indicated in Appeal No. 1114/1997 and this Commission has relied on the decision in Nagaraju''s case where the driver was not holding a badge at the relevant time. In the decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Commission reported in III (1997) CPJ 519=1998 (1) CPR 374, Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kamalesh Kumar Chandrakar, also took the view: "Wide exclusion clause will be read down to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the main purpose or object of the contract." The decision of this Commission in 1997 (3) CPR 40, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the occurrence was clearly on account of the negligence of the driver. So the driver not holding the licence contributed to the occurrence.

IN the case in hand it is admitted fact that the police has registered a crime and after investigation the police has filed the charge-sheet against the vehicle which collided with the vehicle of the complainant. This is material, which would indicate that the driver of this vehicle was not responsible for the occurrence neither the driver had contributed to the occurrence. If that is so, applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the Nagaraju''s case (supra) it has to be held that it will not be open to the appellant to repudiate the claim. IN that view of the matter we do not see anything to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is without merit which is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.