Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs G. SREEDEVI AMMA

HEARD. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. 756/98 whereby the Forum below directed the opposite party/appellant to pay Rs. 14,500/- as repair charges, Rs. 2,500/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the complainant/respondent, opposite party/appellant filed this appeal. The correctness of the impugned order passed by the Forum below has been challenged before us and the ground vehemently urged before us by the learned Counsel Mr. Kalkura is that at the time of taking place of the accident in question the Maruthi Van belonging to the complainant and involved in the accident was driven by one Harikumar who was not holding or possessed of any valid and effective driving licence. Counsel further contended that the Forum below erred grossly in passing the impugned order and the ground is that there was violation of the policy condition.

FACTS remain undisputed. The Maruthi Van belonging to the complainant/respondent bearing Registration No. KL-01-M-2458 was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and the policy was valid for a period from 10.2.1998 to 9.2.1999. It was a comprehensive insurance policy and was issued under the scheme "Total Car Care Policy" jointly sponsored by the opposite party/appellant and M/s. Popular Vehicles and Services Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also an undisputed fact that on 12.4.1998 while the Maruthi Van was proceeding from Thiruvananthapuram to Kanyakumari it dashed against a motor cycle and the venue of the accident was near the Parassala Hospital. Damage was caused to the front portion of the van and the van was got repaired by the complainant/respondent (Popular Vehicles and Services Limited repaired the van). Respondent had paid the repair charges amounting to Rs. 16,144.53. When demand was made for the reimbursement of that amount paid by him to the Popular Vehicles and Services Limited, the appellant/Insurance Company repudiated his claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle one Harikumar was not at the time of accident possessed or holding any valid and effective driving licence. Learned Counsel Mr. Kalkura relying on the decision rendered by the National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited. v. Jadav Narendrabhai Jethabai. I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC), contended that the driving licence of Harikumar was renewed only with effect from 16.4.1998 and not with effect from date of its expiry and it is clear from that fact that the driver had not applied for renewal of the driving licence within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry of the driving licence i.e., within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry of the driving licence. It is an undisputed fact that the driving licence expired on 6.3.1998. He argued that as the driver had not applied for renewal of licence issued to him it cannot be said that driving licence was renewed with effect from the date of expiry and he (driver) was not holding any valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and there was clear violation of the policy condition in Exbt. P2.

Countering the contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondent relying on driver''s clause in Exbt. P2 policy submitted that even though the driving licence of Harikumar was renewed only with effect from 16.4.1998 he was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence at the time of taking place of the accident. Counsel contended that even if it is held that the driver had applied for renewal of his licence 30 days after the expiry of the period of validity of driving licence issued to him as no material has been produced by the appellant to prove that he was disqualified from holding the licence the appellant cannot and should not be absolved of the liability of making payment of the amount ordered to be made by the Forum below to the complainant. In support of his submission the learned Counsel relied mainly on the decision rendered by Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Phal v. Krishna Makkar and Others, I (1989) ACC 205=1989 ACJ 1126.

LEARNED Counsel also relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in R.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II (1996) CPJ 28 (SC). India, and contended before us that exclusion term of insurance policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of policy that is indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle. Having heard both sides at length we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Forum below. The drivers clause in Exbt. P2 policy reads thus : "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive: Any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving licence to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that a person holding an effective and valid learner''s licence to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder may also drive the vehicle and that the person satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of Motor Vehicle Rule 1989". Identically worded clause contained in an insurance policy issued has been considered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision cited supra and Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there was no violation of the conditions of the policy on the ground that the Insurance Company failed to establish that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident in that case was disqualified from holding any driving licence. It is true that at the time of taking place of the accident in question the period of validity of the driving licence held by the driver of the Maruthi Van already expired (Expired on 6.3.1998) and the licence was renewed only with effect from 16.4.1998. That fact indicates that driver had not applied for renewal of the licence issued to him within 30 days of the expiry of the period of licence given to him. As held in the decision cited supra in order to succeed appellant has also to establish that driver of Maruthi Van was disqualified from holding a valid driving licence. There is no material before us to show that he was disqualified. So we have to held that there was no violation of the policy conditions as contended by the learned Counsel Mr. Kalkura. Further in view of the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra the exclusion term in Exbt. P2 shall be read down so as to serve the main purpose of policy that is to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle. As the driver was not disqualified from holding or obtaining a valid driving licence (it is true that on the date of accident he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence) only course open to us is to sustain the impugned order passed by the Forum below. We find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed with cost of respondent. Cost awarded in the appeal is quantified Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed.