United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs SYED CHAND BASHA

THIS appeal is filed by the opposite parties in C.D. No. 113/1998 on the file of District Forum, Cuddapah.

THE complainant, owner of DCM Toyota A.P. 04 T 0826, insured the vehicle with the opposite parties for Rs. 1,40,000/- on 21.4.1997 valid upto 20.4.1998. THE vehicle met with an accident on 1.5.1997 as it dashed against RTC bus. THE driver of the vehicle died and the vehicle was damaged. He immediately reported the accident and spot survey was conducted by the opposite parties, Surveyor. THE complainant spent Rs. 80,000/- for repair of the vehicle which was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, but since the amount was not paid, the complaint was filed with a request to pay the above amount with Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- towards costs. The opposite parties in their counter did not dispute the basic facts and admitted that the Surveyor estimated the loss at Rs. 63,080/- and after verification of the survey report and the bills furnished by the complainant, the amount worked out at Rs. 61,560/- but on verification of driver''s licence, it was found that he had only light motor vehicle licence at the time of accident and did not have the required driving licence for driving transport vehicle with specific authorisation and hence the claim was repudiated on 20.3.1998.

The District Forum after going through the evidence and material on record, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to pay Rs. 61,560/- towards damages with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order till realisation together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, this appeal is filed. The main contention of the appellants is that a person who possessed the light motor vehicle licence could not drive a transport vehicle without proper authorisation from the Competent Authority and hence there was no deficiency in service. Going through the records, we find that though the appellants admitted the loss at Rs. 6,560/- based on Surveyor''s report and verification of the bills submitted by the respondent the claim was repudiated only on the ground that the driver did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle. As per Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, a person must hold a driving licence for driving transport vehicle with a specific authorisation. However, there is no dispute that upto 7.5 tons, the vehicle is a light motor vehicle only which was used as a transport vehicle in the present case. Therefore, it is for the transport authority to find fault with the driver for not possessing the transport vehicle driving licence but the Insurance Company cannot ignore the fact that it was a light motor vehicle only and hence cannot repudiate the claim on that ground.

WE, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum except reducing the interest awarded from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a., in all other respects the order of the District Forum is confirmed. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.