Madan Mohan Agarwal vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

-THE instant complaint has been preferred by Madan Mohan Agrawal against New India Assurance Company Limited with the following prayer. "Hindi matter omitted"

ON notice having been issued, written statement and objection has been filed by New India Assurance Co. through its Divisional Manager Gorakhpur, sole opposite party. There is no denial of the fact that a Maruti van was insured for Rs. 1,60,000 vide Policy No. 3142130120853/719 issued by the opposite party covering the period 6.8.1992 to 5.8.1993. The policy was valid when the said vehicle met with an accident on 11.10.1992. Bereft of the details, it is again admitted position that Chedilal was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. He was having driving licence No. 89043125. The vehicle was badly shattered as a result of accident. The claim was registered and a police case was also simultaneously started. Intimation vide letter dated 12.10.1992 to the opposite party having reached, Surveyor Sri S.K. Srivastava was duly appointed to survey the spot who did it on 12.10.1992 itself and had submitted a detailed report.

Claim has been repudiated by the opposite party only on the ground that the driver was not supposed to drive the private vehicle because he was not the owner and the licence that he was obtaining did not have an endorsement "paid employee".

MR. V.P. Sharma. Counsel for the complainant and MR. M.K. Kotwal, Counsel for the opposite party have been heard at length and entire record has been examined. The issue of possessing the type of driving licence by the driver of the ill-fated vehicle in the instant case has a parallel decision in the case of Kanaka Lakshmi v. United India Insurance Company Limited, IV (2005) CPJ 118 (NC), in which it has been observed as under : " 7. Only point for consideration in this petition is about the compliance of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows :

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.

This section have two parts, (i) 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. Undisputedly the driver was having effective driving licence on the date of accident.

Second, part of the section reads as follows- "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 licences specifically entitles him so to do." This second part of section is not applicable to the motor cab or motor cycle. This means that no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitled to do so but exclusion is carved out for motor cycle and motor cab. In the licence, driver''s particulars indicate against badge No. NA-not applicable. It has been defined under Section 2(25) of the Motor Vehicles Act-"motorcab" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.

The vehicle in question is a Maruti Omni-1993 which is is a light motor vehicle. It can carry a maximum of six passengers excludin the driver and it was used as a cab. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that it is a maxi cab which has the capacity to carry 10 or more persons. It is also not the case of the Insurance Company that it is a goods carriage. In the vehicle particulars, area of operation has also mentioned as Karnataka State and the driver has a permanent licence.,"

LN view of the aforesaid decision the instant argument no more available. Coming to the Surveyor''s report, the accident is admitted but he has concluded that only Rs. 90,000 should be paid as damaged value. This is seriously challenged by Mr. Sharma. The principal ground of challenge is that salvage value of the accidented vehicle has been counted as Rs. 45,000 which has been deducted from the total loss assessment of Rs. 1,35,000. About 14 years have elapsed since the said accident, the salvage value should be substantially reduced. Nothing could be argued by Mr. Kotwal to negative the said point advanced by Mr. Sharma. In fact after the lapse of 13 years plus, the condition of the salvage of the accidented vehicle must have been reduced to a substantially lesser value. Consequently the deduction for the said purpose is reduced from Rs. 45,000 to Rs. 25,000. The net result is that upholding the surveyor''s calculation of damage and loss and maintaining the actual damage to the accidented vehicle at Rs. 1,35,000, the deduction only of Rs. 25,000 as salvage amount having been made, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,10,000 as insurance claim for the accidented vehicle. In view of what has been discussed above, the complaint has to succeed in part.

THE complainant succeeds partly. A sum of Rs. 1,10,000 shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant along with 6% (six) interest from the date of repudiation i.e. 7.1.1994. THE payment shall be made within two months. However, parties will bear their own costs.

THE complainant shall deliver to the opposite party the salvage of the damaged vehicle within one month along with the documents. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint partly allowed.