ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs ASHOK

THE State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka has directed the present Appellant -Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short the Insurance Co.) to pay Rs. 2,70,000/ - to the present Respondent, who was the Complainant before the said Commission, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 26th November, 1991 till payment.

THE facts as gathered from the record are that the Complainant -Respondent is owner of a Swaraj Mazda Truck bearing Registration No. KA -28/567 which is a ''light motor vehicle'' meant as Goods Carriage. The said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party i.e. Appellant -Insurance Co. for the period from 17th February, 1991 to. 16th February, 1992 vide Commercial Vehicle (India) Goods carrying Vehicle Policy of Insurance bearing No. MV/3240/91. On 26th November, 1991 the said vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. The Complainant lodged a claim with respect to this loss with Insurance Co. which was rejected on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was not having a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle. The Complainant thereupon filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming Rs. 5,61,000/ - as compensation. The Insurance Co. filed a counter contesting the complaint. According to the Insurance Co., the vehicle in question is a transport vehicle and for driving a transport vehicle a specific authorisation is necessary under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and there was no such endorsement on the licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and therefore, the risk was not covered under the policy. The specific averments of the Opposite Party, is contained in para 14 of the counter which has been reproduced by the State Commission and it reads as follows: - ''14. This respondent states that the said assessment of the surveyor was subject to the condition that the insured had not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. This respondent state that on verification of the documents produced by the insured revealed that the vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle and hence a transport vehicle. The driving particulars of the driver, Naga Saheb Jadhav which was produced by the insured disclosed that he had held a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle only which was valid for the period 27.2.90 to 26.2.99. This driving licence, thus revealed that Naga Saheb Jadhav was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. This respondent states that the insured had committed breach of the terms of the policy and violated the provisions of M.V. Act, 1988 in entrusting a transport vehicle to a person who had not held a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and as a consequence thereof, this respondent was not liable to indemnify their insured in respect of the damage claim lodged vide his claim form dated 16.12.1991.'' On the basis of the above averment, the Insurance Co. sought the complaint to be dismissed.

AS noticed above, the State Commission has allowed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved of that Order, the Insurance Co. has filed this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. The learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that it is not disputed in the present case that ill -fated vehicle was a light transport vehicle but it was contracted or adopted for the carriage of goods and accordingly insured. According to him the driver of that vehicle named Naga Saheb Jadhav, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, was not holding an effective driving licence. He placed reliance upon Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as follows: - ''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 on 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.''

HIS argument was though the driver was holding a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, there was no specific endorsement on his licence that he was also authorised to drive transport vehicle. He also placed reliance upon Form 6 of driving licence contained in Chapter II of Central Motor Vehicles Rules which deal with ''Licencing of Drivers of Motor Vehicles''. He pointed out that the form of licence suggests that in case the driver is authorised to drive a transport vehicle then a specific endorsement is made by the licencing authority on the licence to the effect ''the licence to drive transport vehicle is valid from ...to...''.

AFTER considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant we are of opinion that the above arugment has force. As noticed earlier Naga Saheb Jadhav who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of incident was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle. Such a vehicle is defined in Clause (2) of Section (2). In addition to other vehicles mentioned therein it includes a transport vehicle unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. The transport vehicle has been defined in Clause 47 of the said section and it means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, and educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Thus the ''goods carriage'' is defined in Clause 14 of Section 2 that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle. Naga Saheb Jadhav, driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a specific authorisation for driving a transport vehicle as required by Section 3 of the Act nor such authorisation was endorsed on his licence. Here we may mention that the Respondent -Complainant has taken a plea to the effect that the licence of the driver had not been produced by the Insurance Co. and on the other hand only photo copy of the licence was produced before the State Commission. As is clear from the memorandum of appeal, this copy was supplied to the Insurance Co. by the Insured and hence the original must be with him. If there was any mistake in the narration of facts by the Insurance Company, the Insured could have produced the licence of the Driver. In fact, he has not even alleged anywhere that the original licence of Naga Saheb Jadhav contained any authorisation to drive a transport vehicle in a public place.

IN his written submissions to the memo of appeal the insured has also taken a plea to the effect that the policy authorises the following persons to drive the vehicle: ''any person including insured, provided that the person holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified of holding of any such licence.''

THE argument of the insured is that the driver was not disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence for driving a transport vehicle and therefore, in view of the above clause the driver will be deemed to be an authorised person to drive the transport vehicle in question. This argument has no force. The above words suggest that even if on the date of accident the driver did not have a valid licence the fact that he had earlier a permanent licence and is not disqualified on the date of accident to hold such a licence is sufficient to fasten the liability on the Insurance Company. In the present case it is not the case of the insured that the driver ever had a licence for driving a transport vehicle in a public place. In the light of the above discussion we hold that it is established on the record that the driver, Naga Saheb Jadhav was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident. Consequently the Insurance Co. is not liable to indemnify the Insured for the loss in respect of the vehicle. In the result, we accept the present appeal, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. In the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.