United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Jitendra Surya

THE present revision petition has been filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, MP(hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby it has dismissed an appeal filed by the Petitioner and confirmed the award passed by the District Forum in favour of one Jitendra Surya, Respondent in this case.

THE facts of the case are that the Respondent had insured a Maruti Esteem vehicle with the Petitioner Insurance Company since 2001. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 30.04.2004 the said vehicle met with an accident and survey of the vehicle was got done by the Petitioner Insurance Company. Respondent states that he had spent about Rs.75,000/- in repairing the said vehicle. He thereafter filed a claim with the Petitioner which was rejected without giving any reasons. Respondent thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency of service, mental agony and loss etc. and seeking Rs.75,000/- towards the claim amount and Rs.5,000/- as compensation. The Petitioner denied the above contentions and stated that it was informed of the accident 5 days after it occurred and the claim form by the Respondent was sent after two month which was incomplete because it did not include the registration and fitness certificate, driving licence etc. and despite reminders even after three months no documents were furnished. Therefore, a no claim letter was sent to the Respondent. Respondent requested for reconsideration of his claim and when the claim was re-opened and investigated, after receipt of documents, it came to light that the vehicle of the Respondent was registered as a Deluxe Taxi whereas he has got it insured as a private vehicle. At the time of accident, the said vehicle was being used for commercial purposes and driven by a driver who did not have a commercial license. This was in clear contravention of both the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and terms and condition of the insurance policy. Further, the Respondent filed a premature complaint while the matter was still under investigation.

The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent Rs.45,262/- on account of damages to his vehicle and Rs.300/- as cost of litigation with interest failing which the Respondent would be entitled to interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

AGGRIEVED by this, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, inter alia, on the grounds that the driver did not have a valid driving licence since it was not endorsed for driving a transport vehicle as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Commission, however, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present revision petition. Shri Kishore Rawat, counsel for the Petitioner was present. None represented the Respondent. Since service is complete, the case was heard ex parte.

LEARNED counsel for Petitioner while reiterating that the Respondent had prematurely filed a complaint while the matter was still under investigation, stated that the claim deserves to the repudiated on the grounds that the driver of the said vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. As per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is specifically provided that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing 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 rented under a scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. In the instant case, the driving licence of the driver was for driving an LMV i.e. a private vehicle and there was no endorsement in the license for driving a transport vehicle (i.e. a commercial vehicle) as defined under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, there was a clear breach of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the insurance policy conditions. He further stated that there were rulings of courts including the Apex Court that in cases where there is no specific endorsement for driving a transport vehicle in the driving licence issued for driving an LMV, the insurance claim can be repudiated. He specifically cited the judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors. - II(2006) ACC 19(SC). We have gone through the evidence on record and agree with learned counsel that in view of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the above judgment of the Supreme Court of India, the claim is not admissible. We note that the while this submission was made before the State Commission, the State Commission did not consider or discuss this issue in its order while dismissing the appeal. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Commission and accept the revision petition with no order as to costs.