Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs FAKIR MOHAN PRADHAN

THIS is an appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the order of the District Forum, Baragarh directing payment of Rs. 94,000/- under an insurance policy and cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

HEARD Mr. A.K. Mohanty the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. S. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the complainant. Complainant''s case is his trekker dashed against a truck bearing Regn. No. ORU-9432 on 28.2.1993 and sustained damage. The driver of the trekker died along with some other persons. The Insurance Company''s plea was that the driver of the trekker had no valid driving licence. Further the trekker was carrying passengers more than the permissible capacity. The main thrust of argument of Mr. Mohanty is the driver had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is further submitted that admittedly at the time of accident the trekker was carrying passengers. The District Forum held that where the truck bearing No. ORU-9432 dashed against the trekker i.e. this vehicle of the complainant as in clear from the police paper, the Insurance Company cannot take a plea to avoid payment with a plea of absence of a valid licence of the driver. This observation of the District Forum may not be correct because if the driver of an ill-fated vehicle does not have a driving licence the Insurance Company is competent to avoid the policy by paying nothing under the policy. But it is not the case here. In the present case Somnath Sahu was the driver having original driving licence No. 5467 of 1987-88. The xerox copy of the driving licence is on record. It was valid in between the dates 29.3.1988 to 28.3.1993. The accident took place on 28.2.1993. The driving licence was valid as on that date. The only submission of Mr. Mohanty is that the endorsement against column-5 of the licence as regards the class of vehicle authorised to drive, it is mentioned that he was authorised to drive a light motor vehicle with effect from 29.3.1988. In other words Mr. Mohanty''s contention is - admittedly the trekker was found carrying passengers, in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, he was not holding an effective driving licence. Further there was no endorsement by the authorities that he was authorised to drive transport vehicle.

We have dealt with this point on several earlier cases. This is a trekker. Trekker is not a heavy motor vehicle but a light motor vehicle. We are satisfied from the impugned order that the registered capacity of the vehicles was 10 as per the Registration Certificate. At the time of accident though it was carrying 11 persons, the District Forum found on analysis that one of them was a child and, therefore, accepted the case that at the time of the accident the vehicle did not exceed the unladen weight of 1169 kgs. i.e. the unladen weight prescribed for a light motor vehicle. Therefore, it could be said that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the registration certificate.

IT was next contended by Mr. Mohanty that the matter should have been referred to the Civil Court since it could not be said that the Insurance Company did not apply their mind to repudiate the claim. We are of the view that there is no bar for this Forum to entertain the claim petition. We do not find there is any infirmity in the order of the District Forum and accordingly we dismiss the appeal of the Insurance Company. No cost. The order be complied within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed.