AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainants to set aside the dismissal order passed by the District Forum II, Hyderabad in C. D. No. 470/2001 dated 24. 2. 2005.
THE case of the complainant in brief is that the complainants'' car which was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company met with an accident on 11. 6. 2000, the complainant who was driving the vehicle got severally injured and was admitted in the hospital and was bed ridden for almost three months. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the complainant was not having valid driving licence. Aggrieving the same, the complainants filed this complaint. The opposite party resisted the claim of the complainants stating that as per the policy, the person who is driving the vehicle should have valid driving licence at the time of accident and as the complainant was not having any valid driving licence at the time of accident, he is not entitled for the insured sum and hence they repudiated the claim.
In support of their contentions, the complainants filed Exs. A1 to A15 and the opposite party filed Exs. B1 to B13.
ON the basis of the material available on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal with the following grounds. The order of the District Forum suffers from infirmities and the same is not in conformity with the facts of the case, weight of evidence and as such it is liable to be set aside. The order of the District Forum is contrary to law and against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The finding of the District Forum that the appellant was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident is not in conformity with the facts of the case. The District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the earlier Licensing Authority was maintaining the records manually and only recently all these records were computerized and it is known fact that much of the information pertaining to various driving licences issued to the individuals did not find place in the subequent computerized data where several complaints were lodged and the individuals were compelled to take fresh licences. The District Forum in spite of the records showing that the application filed by the respondents for summoning the RTA officials though allowed by the District Forum was not complied by the RTA officials. Even the Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of RTA officials, but, the said Advocate Commissioner has not recorded the evidence. The District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the second appellant was holding a valid driving licence for many years and was not precluded from holding a driving licence and as such the finding of the District Forum is not only against rules but also against the principles of natural justice.
NOTICE served on the respondent but the respondent failed to appear before the Commission. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable. There is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle and it was insured with the Insurance Company and it is valid as on the date of the accident, after the accident the complainants have submitted claim before the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that the complainants were not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident. The appellants contended that the finding of the District Forum that the appellants are not having valid driving licence on the date of accident and the said finding is not sustainable. The burden lies on the respondent to prove that the appellants were not holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident. So for as submissions made by the appellants are concerned, we have gone through the respective pleadings of both the partes. Ex. A1 is the policy schedule. Ex. A2 is the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the driver should posses valid driving licence on the date of accident, then only he is entitled for the insured amount. The complainants have failed to file the driving licence to show that they were having valid driving licence on the date of accident. The appellants contended that the Licensing Authority was maintaining the records manually and only recently all these records were computerized. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable, on the other hand, the respondent has taken several steps to summon the RTA officials to produce the record, but, they failed to do so. Thereafter, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to record the evidence of the RTA officials. But, the Advocate Commissioner has not recorded the evidence of the RTA officials. The burden lies on the appellants that they are having valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The appellants have failed to prove that they were holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident. A recent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)=ix (2007) SLT 841=i (2008) ACC 54 (SC), held that the Insurance Company is not liable when the driver was not holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The principle laid down in this case can be taken into consideration in our present case also. The appellant/complainants were not having any valid driving licence on the date of the accident and as per the policy terms and conditions also, only the driver, who is having valid driving licence on the date of the accident is entitled for the insurance claim. In our present case also, the appellant/complainants were not having any valid driving licence on the date of the accident. There was no reasonable ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The order passed by the District Forum is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Appeal dismissed.