DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

THIS is a complainant''s appeal against the order dated 10.1.1996 passed in Case No. 392/94 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the ''District Forum'').

IT is not in dispute that a Matador owned by the complainant bearing No. MP-07 7020 was comprehensively insured with the opposite party for a period of one year commencing from 14.10.1992 to 13.10.1993. During the period of insurance, vehicle met with an accident of which the claim was lodged, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time was not holding a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle as the licence did not have authorisation or endorsement of the Licensing Authority to drive the transport vehicle as required by the Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The complaint filed by the complainant was resisted. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Mr. B.V. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that a driver was holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle and the Matador mini bus within the weight of light motor vehicle that is within 7500 k.gms, therefore, repudiation of the claim was on unjustifiable grounds. Alternatively, it was submitted that even there was breach of conditions, the opposite party ought to have considered the claim as sub- standard claim in view of Clause 10 of Procedure Manual of Motor Claims.

Mr. S.K. Menon, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order of the District Forum and submitted that admittedly the driver of the vehicle was not holding the valid driving licence, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. The question of treating the claim as sub-standard claim does not arise. Counsel cited the decision of the National Commission in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ashok, II (1995) CPJ 208 (NC).

SECTION 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines "Driving licence" means the licence issued by a Competent Authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. Chapter II deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. SECTION 3 speaks of necessity for driving licence which reads thus : "3. Necessity for driving licence-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor-cab or motor-cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of SECTION 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which Sub- section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government."

SECTION 10 speaks of form and contents of licences to drivers which is extracted thus : "10. Form and contents of licences to driver- (1) Every learner''s licence and driving licence except a driving licence issued under SECTION 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner''s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely- (a) motor-cycle without gear; (b) motor-cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) medium passengers motor vehicle; (g) heavy goods vehicle; (h) heavy passenger motor vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of specified description.

Admittedly the driver had the licence of light motor vehicle and not of transport vehicle. The licence had no authorisation of driving transport vehicle. Therefore, in terms of Section 3(1) the driver was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. The vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by the driver who did not hold valid licence, hence, the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim. See the decision of National Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Ashok (supra).

THE question of treating the claim as sub- standard claim in the circumstance, does not arise. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum alongwith the record of the case. Appeal dismissed. ________________