New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs JATINDER KUMAR

THIS appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging order of District Forum, Sangrur dated September 19,1996 whereby a direction was given to the Insurance Company - the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 52,849.23 p. with 15% per annum interest thereon, with effect from November 6, 1995 till payment. A sum of Rs. 1,100/was allowed as costs.

SOME of the facts are not disputed, which can be summarised in nutshell. Jatinder Kumar, owner of Maruti Van No. PB-01-0479, got it insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., as taxi since it was registered as taxi. This Maruti Van was damaged in an accident caused with a bus No. PAB-7565 owned by M /s. Dasmesh Bus Service, Rajkot on September 6,1995 at about 4.15 p.m. near village Ladda on Sangrur-Dhuri Road. The claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 52,849.23p. Since the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The stand taken up by the Insurance Company was that the claim was rightly repudiated by the company as the driver of the motor-vehicle, which was involved in the accident was not possessing a valid Driving Licence for the category of the vehicle registered. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. Copy of the Registration Book of the Vehicle is Annexure-A, copy of Driving Licence was produced as AnnexureC11 copy of Insurance Policy as Annexure C2 and copy of FIR and report of untraced offence were also produced apart from the estimate of the damage. On the evidence so led, the impugned order was passed. The short question for consideration is as to whether Jatinder Kumar complainant is/was holding valid driving licence to drive a car was authorised to drive a Maruti Van, which was registered as a taxi. The stand of the appellant Insurance Company being that since there was no endorsement on the driving licence that he was also authorised to drive a taxi van/car, he was not possessing a valid driving licence and thus the repudiation being valid and the decision was taken bona fide by the Company, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. This contention cannot be accepted. As far as the nature of the vehicle is concerned, it being a Maruti van which can also be driven as a private car, Jatinder Kumar was authorised to drive the same. Registration of a vehicle as a taxi is an authority to carry passengers on hire, otherwise, in the matter of driving the same, no expertise or special skills are required as is required for driving a car for which the licence is issued. A person who holds a valid driving licence to drive a car/van is also entitled to drive a car/van which is registered as a taxi and not used as such. Similar matter came up before the Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1997 ACJ 216. A Maruti car was registered as taxi, however, when Insurance Policy was obtained, he did not mention the user as a taxi. The owner of the car who had valid driving licence to drive the car was driving the same at the time of accident and thus the question arose whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the liability for damage caused to the car in the Motor Vehicles Accident. On difference of opinion between two Judges, the matter was referred to the third Judge. Mr. Justice Sharma, after making reference to different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act answered the questions against the Insurance Company holding that if a vehicle registered as a taxi meets with an accident, Insurance Company cannot disown its liability to compensate for the loss merely on the ground that the driver driving the vehicle was not holding a driving licence, which entitled him to drive a transport vehicle (taxi) unless the insured was at fault in placing a driving licence to drive the vehicle. It was also held that there was no embargo under the Act (Motor Vehicle Act) prohibiting driving of a transport vehicle, motor cab-taxi, for private use by a person holding a valid driving licence to drive a motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle, if the motor cab has been hired for his own use or rented under a scheme framed under Section 75 of the Act. It was held that Insurance Company was not justified to repudiate the claim.

The question as to whether Jatinder Kumar at the relevant time was using the car for his private purpose or as a taxi it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to get the material to base its finding and to repudiate the claim. Merely, on the ground that the car was registered as taxi is no ground to hold that Jatinder Kumar who was holding a valid driving licence to drive a car at the relevant time was driving it as a taxi. The only material available on the record is the report of the police indication that at the relevant time, Jatinder Kumar was accompanied by his own brother Lajpat. Obviously, it cannot be held that Jatinder Kumar was using the car at the relevant time as a taxi. In the absence of any material collected by the Insurance Company in this respect, the repudiation of the claim is not after applying mind and is not bona fide. Non settlement of the claim in such a case amounts to deficiency in rendering service and the Insurance Company is liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss suffered to the car by means of accident.

FOR the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Order of the District FORum is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.