SUSHILA DEVI vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

-THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 3.10.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), whereby her complaint was dismissed being meritless.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that a motorcycle model 2005 bearing Registration No. HR-49-A-4382 was registered in the name of Sh. Balu Ram, husband of the appellant (complainant). The said motorcycle was also insured with the respondent (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) vide policy No. 4961 of 2006, whose copy is Annexure C-1. It was next averred that unfortunately Sh. Balu Ram died in a road accident on 1.11.2005 while driving his motorcycle. The copy of the DDR registered with the police is Annexure C-2.

It was further averred that appellant approached the respondent for release of Rs. one lakh towards personal accident policy but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated 31.3.2006 on the ground that he was only having learner''s licence at the time of accident. The copy of the repudiation letter is Annexure C-4.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. Respondent contested the complaint and stated that the deceased Balu Ram who was driving the motorcycle was having learner''s driving licence and there is no evidence that pillion rider Sh. Parkash Chand who was treated as instructor was having valid driving licence. It next stated that policy of insurance specifically provided that a person holding effective learner''s licence could also drive the vehicle provided the said person satisfied the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and since instructor was not having valid driving licence, so, claim was rightly repudiated.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint being meritless. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. Anil Kumar Mahajan and carefully gone through the file.

EX. C-1 is certificate-cum-policy schedule from which it is proved that the vehicle was insured from 18.7.2005 to 17.7.2006 with the respondent. The accident in question had taken place on 1.11.2005 i.e. within the validity of the policy. There is drivers clause printed on it, which reads "any person including insured; provided that a person driving holds an effective and valid driving licence and is not disqualified from holding such licence. Provided also that a person holding an effective learner''s licence may also drive the vehicle if he satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989". It is further stated in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that a person holding learner''s licence could also drive the vehicle provided that he is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. In the present case Sh. Parkash Chand was pillion rider or we can say that he was an instructor. But no evidence has been led by the appellant that he was holding valid driving licence and was in a position to control or stop the vehicle. In the absence of this evidence, the claim cannot be allowed. It is not case of third party but it is case of claim of insured itself i.e. Balu Ram. Therefore, judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in case titled Mahamooda & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., III (2006) ACC 242 (SC)=2006 ACJ 2825 is not applicable in view of the latest judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, decided on 2.3.2007 and reported as III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC)=II (2007) ACC 28 (SC)=IV (2007) SLT 102=2007 ACJ 721 where it is held that National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., I (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=I (2004) SLT 345= 109 (2004) DLT 304 (SC)=2004 ACJ 1 (SC) is not applicable to cases other than third party claims.

We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.