V. Srinivasan vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN this complaint, under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Act, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,72,500/- from the opposite party, the United INdia INsurance Company Limited.

THE complainant is the owner of a vehicle "Swaraz Mazda", a goods vehicle unladen weight of which is 5990 kgs. THE registration number of which is KA-03 799. It is a light motor vehicle. THE complainant had insured the said vehicle with opposite party No. 1. THE insured sum was Rs. 2,80,000/-. THE duration of the policy was from 17.1.91 to 16.1.92. The said vehicle during the currency of the policy met with an accident on 24.12.1991. The complainant was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident. The vehicle was badly damaged due to the said accident. The complainant made claim with the opposite party for reimbursement of the loss sustained. He claimed a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim. The Surveyor of the Insurance Company had estimated the loss sustained at Rs. 1,75,000/-.

The opposite party by its letter dated 23.6.1992 repudiated the claim of the complainant stating the said vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as it was a goods vehicle and the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having a valid driving licence to drive the goods vehicle. The complainant averred that he had a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle, and so, when the opposite party repudiated the claim, filed the complaint seeking compensation from the opposite party in a sum of Rs. 2.72.500/-.

THE opposite party filed its version. It did not dispute the fact of the said vehicle was insured with it. It also did not dispute that the accident had taken place during the currency of policy period. But the opposite party further averred that the driver, that is, the complainant who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident had no valid driving licence to drive the said goods vehicle, and so, the complainant had acted in violation of the policy conditions while driving the said vehicle without having a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. So, the opposite party averred that having regard to these facts, it had not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant. During enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and examined A.R.T.O. Officer of Indiranagar, Bangalore as CW 1 and got exhibits C 1 to C 11 marked in evidence.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and the material on record. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are: (1) Whether the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question ? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation ? And if so, to what amount of compensation he is entitled to ? Ex. C 4 is the copy of the policy of the insurance of the vehicle. It shows that it is a light motor vehicle, gross weight of which is 5990 kgs, that is, less than 6000 kgs. it is described as a public carrier, Swaraz Mazda. Ex. C 1 is the Certificate of registration of the said vehicle. The said vehicle has been described in it as L.M.V.(T).

THE complainant, in his complaint, at para No. 2 has averred thus: Para 2: - That it is submitted that the complainant is the owner of a four-wheeler vehicle by name "Swaraz Mazda" bearing registration No. KA-03 799. It is a light motor vehicle. THE complainant purchased the vehicle on 17.1.91. THE vehicle is used for carrying the goods in Karnataka State under a valid permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore as per No. 3966/90 dated 18.1.91. THE aforesaid vehicle is insured with the 1st respondent Company under a comprehensive policy bearing No. 70502/31/03/1/35129/ 91 valid upto 16.1.92. THE complainant has paid the tax up-to-date and the comprehensive risk is covered up-to-date as per the aforesaid policy issued by the 1st respondent. THE complainant has produced the copy of the R.C. Book. Tax Card, Fitness Certificate and permit alongwith a copy of the policy of insurance. THE complainant has purchased the aforesaid vehicle by borrowing loan, and the same is hypothecated to Annamalai Finance Ltd. Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. THE post purchase value of the vehicle including all the fittings is Rs. 3,00,000/-. THErefore, it is clear that the vehicle in question is used for carrying the goods in Karnataka State under a valid permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore. It is a light motor vehicle, that is a transport vehicle.

EX. C 3 is the driving licence of the driver, that is the complainant who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. It shows the driver, the complainant had the driving licence for driving light motor vehicle, medium passenger vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle with effect from 23.9.87. Subsequently, it was renewed from time to time and on the date of the accident, that is on 24.12.91, the driver of the vehicle was having a licence for driving a light motor vehicle, medium passenger vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. The learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle and the driver of such a vehicle must necessarily have a specific endorsement in the licence to entitle him to drive the said vehicle under the provisions of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As it is evident that no such specific endorsement was found on the licence of the driver. So the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not entitled to drive the said vehicle. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was untenable.

As noticed above, the complainant was driving the vehicle in question at the time of incident, was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, medium passenger vehicle and a heavy passenger vehicle but not the goods vehicle.

THE light motor vehicle is defined in Clause 21 of Section 2 of the Act in addition to other vehicles mentioned therein. It includes a transport vehicle, unladen weight of which does. not exceed 6000 kgs. THE ''transport vehicle'' has been defined in Clause 47 of the said section. It means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage and educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. The goods carriage is defined in Clause 14 of Section 2 of the Act. It is evident from the Registration Certificate that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle. The complainant, the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a specific authorization for driving a transport vehicle as required by Section 3 of the Act nor such authorization was endorsed on his licence. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the driver, the complainant who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not holding an effective driving licence to drive the said transport vehicle at the time of the accident.

SO, it is clear that the complainant has acted in violation of the policy conditions, and so, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured for the loss sustained by him in respect of the vehicle. Having regard to these facts, we are constrained to hold that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant. In view of this finding on Point No. (1), consideration of point No. 2 does not arise.

IN the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed.

THE parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Complaint dismissed.