National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs AASHIR MENON

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short) dated 21.2.2002 in Case No. 468/2001, directing the appellant to pay the complainant/respondent herein a sum of Rs. 40,030/- with interest @ 12% per annum.

THE relevant facts which are not now in dispute are, that the complainant/respondent owns Taxi Jeep No. MP-23 T 1527. THE opposite party/appellant comprehensively insured the said taxi for the period from 28.2.2000 to 27.2.2001. THE said taxi jeep met with an accident on 27.8.2000 i.e. during the period in which it was covered by the said insurance. THE complainant/respondent incurred an expenditure for the repair of the taxi jeep to the tune of Rs. 40,030/-. The contention of the appellant/opposite party in the District Forum was that the jeep driver did not have an effective driving licence inasmuch as the licence issued by the R.T.O., Bhilai was for light motor vehicle only.

The learned District Forum held that the jeep taxi in question was a light motor vehicle as its unlaiden weight was less than 7500 kgs. It was further held that the repudiation by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the taxi was not having the valid driving licence, was not proper. It accordingly awarded compensation as mentioned above.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant insurer submitted that the learned District Forum fell into error in awarding compensation by holding that the driver has valid and effective driving licence. It was submitted that the vehicle was being used as a taxi and that the driver had only licence to drive light motor vehicle and was, therefore, not authorised to drive the taxi. It was further submitted that the appellant insurer had rightly repudiated the claim or the complainant/respondent. As against above, the learned Counsel for the complainant /respondent submitted that the complainant''s driver was authorised to drive the transport vehicle and heavy goods vehicle w.e.f. 19.3.98 as would be clear from the endorsement made in that regard by the competent licensing authority-Additional R.T.O., Durg, Bhilai. The learned Counsel for the respondent, therefore, submitted that the learned District Forum was fully justified in awarding compensation to the respondent.

IN view of the above the only question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the driver of the complainant held valid and effective driving licence ? It is noticed that the copy of the licence of driver Khilwinder Singh Randhawa is on record. It indicates that initially the Additional R.T.O., Durg, Bhilai issued it for driving light motor vehicle only subsequently, however there was an endorsement by the same licensing authority permitting the said driver to drive transport vehicle and heavy goods vehicle w.e.f. 19.3.98. The endorsement as above was valid upto 18.3.2001. Obviously, therefore at the time when the accident took place i.e. on 27.8.2000, in view of the said endorsement, the driver was entitled to drive heavy goods vehicle as well as transport vehicle. It may be noticed in the above context that transport vehicle has been defined in Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per the said definition transport vehicle means inter alia public service vehicle. Section 2(35) of the said Act defines public service vehicles as meaning any motor vehicle used or adopted for public use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward etc. Therefore, it would be clear that the jeep taxi was a transport vehicle and the driver was authorised to drive the same at the time of accident and thus he had effective and valid driving licence in that regard. It is, therefore, clear that the repudiation made by the appellant insurer of the claim of the respondent was not justified. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant are not well-founded and cannot be accepted.

THIS appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.