ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs PREMA

-THIS appeal is by the Insurance Company challening the order dated 31. 10. 2006 passed by the DF, Dharwad in Complaint No. 159/2006 allowing the complaint of the complainant in part.

THE facts in this case are as follows : The husband of the complainant is the owner of two wheeler motor cycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. KA 25v 8526. The said vehicle was insured with the O. P. for the period from 12. 11. 2004 to 11. 11. 2005. The said vehicle met with an accident on 2. 11. 2005. In the said accident the husband of the complainant who was riding the vehicle also died. In the accident referred to above, the vehicle suffered certain damage. The fact of accident was informed to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company after coming to know the fact of accident appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Ultimately, the Surveyor inspected the vehicle, assessed the loss and submitted the report. But in the meanwhile the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the husband of the complainant who was riding the motor cycle did not have a driving licence to drive a two wheeler. This repudiation has made the complainant to file the complaint before the DF claiming compensation.

The DF accepting the case of the complainant has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,000 for mental agony and costs. This order is under challenge by the Insurance Company in this appeal.

ADMITTEDLY the husband of the complainant who was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident did not have a driving licence to drive a two wheeler. As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules no one is permitted to ride a motor cycle or to drive a four wheeler in a public place without the licence. If that is so, the Insurance Company is not liable to make good the loss if any suffered. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant relying upon the decision reported in ILR 1996 KAR 2220 and ILR 2003 KAR 3511 submitted as the husband of the complainant had the driving licence to drive LMV he is also authorised to drive two wheeler since the said two wheeler is classified as a light motor vehicle. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: "section 3. Necessity for driving licence- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence is sued 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 for his own use or rental under scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do. "

READING of the said section it is clear no person could drive a motor cycle in a public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorising him to drive the vehicle that is to say unless a person possesses a driving licence to drive the two wheeler he is not authorised to drive or ride the two wheeler in a public place. In the instant case admittedly since the husband of the complainant did not have a driving licence to drive the two wheeler it is open for the Insurance Company to avoid its liability since the driving the two wheele in a public place without the licence amounts to violation of the policy conditions. Therefore, in our view the DF is not right in allowing the complaint of the complainant. In the result, we pass the following: order appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Complaint No. 159/2006 filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Dharwad is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The appellant/insurance Company has deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000 in this appeal before this Commission. If the appellant files a memo for refund of the same, the office is directed to refund the same to the appellant/insurance Company. Appeal allowed.