NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs T MAHESHWARI

-THE opposite party in O. P. No. 85 of 2002 on the file of the District Forum, Erode is the appellant herein.

THE appeal is against the majority order by the members. The minority order by the President dismissed the complaint. The case of the complainant was as follows : The vehicle of the complainant insured with the opposite party for the period from 30. 11. 2001 to 29. 11. 2002 was involved in an accident on 14. 1. 2002 on the Trichy- Thanjavur Road near Thuvakudi Check Post. The van was damaged extensively. The police was informed and an FIR was also registered. The complainant submitted the claim with estimate of Rs. 1,02,265 from one CAI Industries Limited. Repairs were carried out. The claim was rejected on the ground that the driver who had driven the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence on 14. 1. 2002, the date of the accident and, therefore, rejected the claim. Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

The opposite party as already noted resisted the complaint stating that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and hence the claim was rightly repudiated.

BEFORE the District Forum on the side of the complainant Ex. A1 to Ex. A10 were marked while no document was marked on the side of the opposite party. The majority order by the members held that though Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act spoke about 30 days period for renewal, the licence could be renewed even after 30 days and the person who renewed the licence did not stand disqualified; that there would be only a break and that would not amount to disqualification and only in the case of disqualification, the claim could be repudiated. The President held that licence had expired on 26. 11. 2001. It was renewed only on 18. 1. 2002. Upto 17. 1. 2002 the date , the accident occurred the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence. The claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite party. It was contended before the District Forum by the owner of the vehicle namely the complainant that P. Esvaran was appointed as driver since he had valid driving licence. He had not informed that his licence had expired on 26. 11. 2001 and she was not aware of the fact. She allowed him to continue in the job on bona fide belief that he had a valid licence. She had not committed any violation of policy conditions. As against the majority order, the appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel for the opposite party/appellant submited as follows : The majority order is based on the decision of the Gujarat State Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Madhusudan Milling Corporation, 2003 (1) CPR 390, holding that "in a case of claim for damages sufferd by insured vehicle in accident where driver of vehicle in question had a valid driving licence but on the date of accident its validity had expired and was not got renewed, the claim could be settled as non-standard claim". The District Forum had distinguished the two parts in the relevant clause in the policy relating to the driving licence, "that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident" and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. The first part of the exclusion clause will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The President had made a significant observation that the driving licence had expired on 26. 11. 2002 i. e. , just within 4 days of taking the policy for the period from 30. 11. 2001 to 29. 11. 2002. The complainant ought to have seen whether the driver had proper driving licence even at the time of taking the policy and she had failed to do so. In the recent order of the National Commission in Thomas Mathew v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , II (2006) CPJ 309 (NC), it has been held that in a case where no application for renewal was made within stipulated period even if benefit of 30 days from the date of expiry was given, in case he applied for renewal, even then on the date of accident driver did not have any valid licence and that the repudiation by the Insurance Company was justified.

MR. K. S. Jeyaganeshan, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that there was only a break and that would not amount to disqualification and only in the case of disqualification the claim could be repudiated. We are of the view that on the date of the accident the person driving the vehicle should hold an effective driving licence. Admittedly that is not the case here. The date of accident was 14. 1. 2002. Under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act the licence had to be renewed within 30 days from the date of expiry, otherwise the driver has to apply for fresh licence. . . . . The driving licence in the present case was renewed on 18. 1. 2002. The driver had obtained a fresh driving licence after the accident. It would mean that on the date of accident he did not have a valid driving licence. In our view, the minority order of the the President is the correct one and the majority order of the Members cannot be sustained. Consequently, the majority order is set aside; the minority order of the President of the District Forum is upheld. We have taken the same view in A. P. 343 of 2003 after referring to various decisions. In the result, the appeal is allowed; the majority order of the District Forum is set aside; the complainant shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.