Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs S. SIDDAPPA

THIS is an appeal by the respondent in Complaint No. 92/96 on the file of the District Forum, Shimoga. The District Forum directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 35,934/- as damages plus Rs. 5,000/- being compensation together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 5.3.1995 till realisation and costs of Rs. 300/-.

THE complainant/respondent in this appeal filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act contending that he is a registered owner of a Mitsubishi Truck bearing No. CTS 9231 which was insured with the opposite party and had obtained a policy from 9.8.1994 to 8.8.1995. On 5.3.1995, the said Truck met with an accident and was damaged substantially causing loss to the tune of Rs. 38,933.52 p. THE complainant lodged a claim for the said loss with the opposite party. Accordingly a Surveyor and Assessor conducted the survey of the said lorry and had assessed the loss and damage in persuance of the claim made by the complainant. According to the complainant, at the time of the accident, one Sarvar Peer was driving the vehicle and had a valid driving licence. Since the complainant had not violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party is liable to pay the said amount. But, the opposite party, by his letter dated 17.11.1995 refused to pay the said amount and repudiated the claim. Hence the said complaint was filed before the District Forum. On receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the opposite party - Oriental Insurance Company, through its Advocate, submitted the written version. In the said version, the Insurance Company admitted the existence of the insurance policy in favour of the complainant for the period from 9.8.1994 to 8.8.1995. It has submitted that on verification of the driving licence of Sarvar Peer, it was noticed that his driving licence had expired on 11.9.1994 and it was renewed only on 6.3.1995 and the accident has taken place on 5.3.1995. Since the said Sarvar Peer had no driving licence at the time of the accident, it had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as per the conditions of the policy and there was no deficiency in service by the opposite party and hence asked the District Forum to dismiss the complaint.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant had proved deficiency in service by the opposite party - Insurance Company and passed the above order.

IN this appeal, the main point for determination is whether the INsurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. It is an undisputed fact that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of the accident, was one Sarvar Peer and he had a driving licence to drive the Truck, which met with an accident, upto 11.9.1994. After the expiry of the validity of the driving licence on 11.9.1994, the said driver had not got it renewed within 30 days from 11.9.1994 so as to have the continuity of the validity of the driving licence from 11.9.1994. Admittedly, the said driving licence was renewed by the said driver only on 6.3.1995 beyond the period of 30 days. There was no driving licence at the time of the accident. IN this connection, it will be useful to refer to Section 15(1) proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows : "15. Renewal of driving licences.- (1) Any Licensing Authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry : Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal : ............................................"

In the present case, the driver had driving licence upto 11.9.1994. He got the driving licence renewed only on 6.3.1995 i.e., after a period of nearly 6 months. That being so, the licence has to be got renewed with effect from the date of renewal i.e., from 6.3.1995. Admittedly, the accident took place on 5.3.1995 and on that date the driver had no valid and effective driving licence. The District Forum proceeded on the basis that he had licence earlier to the accident and that being so the said licence will come to his rescue even on the date of accident, which is not legally correct. In this connection, reliance can be placed on the decision of the National Commission in I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC). In the said decision, this is what the Commission has observed : "7. It is not disputed before us that under the terms of the policy the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate the insurer for any loss occurring to the vehicle is conditional on the driver of the vehicle possessing an effective licence at the time of occurrence of the loss. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the topic of ''renewal of driving licences''. Sub-section (1) of the said section so far as it is material for our present purpose, lays down : "(1) Any Licensing Authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal."

In the light of the clear mandate contained in the proviso to the section that in a case where the application for renewal of the licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed only with effect from the date of such renewal, we find it impossible to uphold the view expressed by the State Commission that whenever a driving licence is renewed, such renewal would automatically take effect from the date of expiry of the original licence. The said view overlooks the clear terms of the proviso which are mandatory in nature."

WE heard the learned Advocate for the respondent on this point. He is unable to submit before us to take a view different from the one taken by the National Commission. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we have to allow this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.