K.A.M. ASHRAF vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

-THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant is the owner of the light commercial van canter Mitsubishi bearing registration No. KL-7A-2511. THE said vehicle had been insured with the Opposite Party for the period from 10-9-90 to 9-9-91. On 13-8-91 the vehicle met with an accident and a claim was preferred with the Opposite Party. THE claim was rejected by the Opposite Party on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having a valid license to drive a Transport Vehicle. Hence this complaint. The Opposite Party in its counter pointed out that the vehicle of the complainant was a transport vehicle and that the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having a proper license to drive a transport vehicle. According to the Opposite Party for driving a transport vehicle a specific authorisation is necessary under the Act and there was no such authorisation in the license issued to the complainant. The policy is not therefore enforceable.

Exhs. A1 to A21 and B1 to B6 are marked. Proof affidavits are filed.

THE short point which arises for consideration is whether the driver of the complainant was holding a proper license at the time of the accident. The complainant''s vehicle involved this accident is a canter Mitsubishi van. There is no dispute that it is a light motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 under which "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 6,000 kilograms. The complainant''s vehicle involved in this accident is not an omnibus or a motor car or tractor or road-roller. It is only a transport vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 under which the "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. The complainant''s vehicle has been used at a goods carriage and is therefore a transport vehicle. As its gross vehicle weight is less than 6,000 kg. (Exh. A2 registration certificate gross vehicle weight 5,950 kg.), it is a light motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

EXH. A1 is the driving license of Mr. K. Amalraj the driver of the vehicle of the complainant who was at the wheels at the time of the accident. He has been got a license to drive light motor vehicles. It is therefore argued by the complainant that the driver was holding a competent license to drive the complainant''s vehicle which was also a light motor vehicle. But Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 reads thus : "3. Necessity for driving License-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75) unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do."

The above provision of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 clearly shows that no person shall dirve a transport vehicle other than a motor car hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do. It therefore means that a driver who is authorized to drive any motor vehicle must also take a special endorsement in his license for driving a transport vehicle. In National Insurance Company, Trichirappalli v. Sugantha Kunthalambal, a Bench of the High Court of Madras has held that for a person to drive a light motor vehicle as a public service, vehicle or as a goods vehicle, there should be a special endorsement in the license authorising the license to drive the vehicle ACJ 434 of 1981 ACJ 302 Madras. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Subramaniam 1991 ACJ 625 a three wheeler goods vehicle driven by a driver who was holding license to drive a light motor vehicle was involved in accident. It was after the date of the accident an endorsement was made in his license authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. It was held by Rathnam, J. (as he was then) that the driver had no license on the date of the accident to drive the tempo and Insurance Company was not liable for the claim. In view of the above decisions under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, we hold that even though the complainant''s driver Amalraj was having a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle he was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle like the Complainant''s vehicle involved in this accident as there was no endorsement authorising him to drive a transport vehicle at the time of the accident as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. We therefore accept the contention of the insurer that the complainant had no valid license to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident and the claim is not sustainable. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs. Complaint dismissed.