ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company Limited vs SONEX FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

THESE two Appeals are by the Insurance Company/opposite party (for short, the "OP") challenging the common Order passed by the District Forum in Complaint No. 998/1999 and Complaint No. 1068/1999.

THE facts in Complaint No. 998/1999 are as follows: THE Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-02/N-3227. THE said vehicle was insured with the O.P. with effect from 22.8.1997 to 21.8.1998. THE said vehicle met with an accident on 4.5.1998. In the accident, the vehicle suffered a substantial damage. In respect of this damage, the Complainant made a claim for compensation since the Policy was in force as on the date of the accident. THE claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the O.P. on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident had no valid driving licence. The facts in case of Complaint No. 1068/1999 are as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01/8027. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.10.1998. In the said accident, the vehicle suffered a substantial damage. As on the date of the accident the Insurance Policy was in force. In respect of this damage, the Complainant made a claim before the O.P. for compensation. The said claim was repudiated by the O.P. on the ground that the Driver of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident had no valid Driving Licence to drive the vehicle.

The repudiation of the claim by the O.P. in the above said two cases made the Complainants to file the Complaints before the District Forum. The District Forum after considering the cases of both the parties allowed the Complaints with a direction to the O.P. to settle the claims by a common order. This order is under challenge in these two Appeals.

MR. Srishaila, learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. in Complaint No. 998/1999, contended that since the Driver of the vehicle had no valid Driving Licence to drive the vehicle, the O.P. is justified in repudiating the claim. The Driver of the vehicle had a Licence and the Licence had expired on 3.3.1998. The same was renewed with effect from 14.5.1998. But the accident took place on 4.5.1998. The First Information Report in respect of this vehicle discloses how the accident took place. From the First Information Report it is seen that the vehicle in question was stationed at a place on Bangalore-Tumkur Road and at that time some other vehicle came rashly from behind and hit the stationed vehicle and the stationed vehicle ultimately hit another stationed vehicle in front of it and thereby the vehicle in question was sandwiched between the two vehicles. From this it is seen that the vehicle in question was not in motion at the time of the accident. If that were to be the case, whether the Driver had a valid Driving Licence or not is irrelevant for the purpose of considering the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, in our view, the O.P. cannot escape its liability to indemnify the loss suffered by the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant in Complaint No. 1068/1999 was repudiated by the O.P. on the ground that the Driver of the vehicle had no valid Driving Licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 29.10.1998. The Driver who was driving the vehicle had a Licence which was valid for the period from 8.2.1998 to 7.2.1999 and the Licence was renewed with effect from 30.6.1999. From these facts, it is seen that as on the date of the accident the Driver had no valid Licence to drive the vehicle.

THE learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. relying upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Salvador Rodrigues Margo v. New India Assurance Company Limited, reported in I (2005) CPJ 71 (NC)=2005 NCJ 48 (NC), submitted that the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation, as the vehicle in question was used in breach of the conditions of the Policy. No doubt so far as the third party is concerned, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Others, reported in I (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 345=(2004) 3 SCC 297. But whatever benefit that could be given to the third party, in our view, is to be extended to the Insured because of the fact that the Driver who was driving the vehicle had the knowledge of driving the vehicle since he had a Licence earlier to the accident and got it renewed subsequently, even though as on the date of the accident, the Licence was not current. If he had a valid Driving Licence and if it is subsequently renewed, his position, in our view, is much better than holder of a Learner''s Licence. But as there is a breach of conditions of the Policy, in our view, the Insurance Company ought to have considered the case of the Complainant treating the claim as ''Non-standard Claim''. THErefore, to this extent, in our view, the Order of the District Forum requires modification. In the result, we pass the following Order in modification of the Order of the District Forum as follows: The Complaints filed by the Complainants are disposed of in the following terms: (1) The O.P. is directed to consider and settle the claim made by the Complainant in Complaint No. 998/1999 within four weeks from today with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident till realization; (2) The O.P. is directed to consider and settle the claim of the Complainant in Complaint No. 1068/1999 treating it as a ''Non-standard Claim'' with interest at 6% from the date of the accident till realization. (3) Parties to bear their costs.

Complaints disposed of.