SANDEEP KUMAR vs IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

THE main controversy revolves around the question ''whether a person having invalid driving licence is entitled to have the claim settled on non -standard basis''. The facts of this case are these. During the subsistence of the insurance policy issued by opposite party No. 1/IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., the vehicle make Mahindra Bolero met with an accident on 17.4.2010. The vehicle was totally damaged. The claim of Shri Sandeep Kumar/complainant/petitioner was passed in the sum of Rs. 3,55,000 but the same was not given as the opposite parties demanded Rs. 5,000 as bribe, which the complainant refused to pay. The damaged vehicle is lying parked in the rented garage for which he is paying Rs. 500 per month as rent. His request, including legal notice dated 25.10.2010, made to the opposite parties, number of times, did not bring the desired result. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint and the opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,24,500 as the insurance amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order dated 20.3.2012 till the date of realization of that amount. However, the State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.

ALTHOUGH , the surveyor had reported that there was loss of Rs. 2,24,500, yet, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driving licence of the driver was not genuine. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the driver of the vehicle was possessing the driving licence for driving LMV and he was not having any driving licence for driving a ''transport vehicle'' nor there is any endorsement regarding the ''transport vehicle'' on that licence. The State Commission has placed reliance on the celebrated authority in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors., : III (2009) SLT 586 : II (2009) ACC 313 (SC) : 2009 (2) RCR (civil) 419. The argument urged by learned Counsel for the complainant that the unladen weight was less than 7500 kilograms, was not accepted by the State Commission and the same was also not raised before us. The State Commission placed reliance on Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and held: While interpreting different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Angad Kol''s case (supra), that from the provisions of Section 10(2) the distinction between a ''light motor vehicle'' and a ''transport vehicle'' is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. It becomes very much clear from the ratio of that judgment that a person having a licence to drive a ''light motor vehicle'' does not become entitled to drive a ''transport vehicle'' for which a distinct licence is required. In view of that judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, reliance is not to be placed on the above said judgments of the Hon''ble High Courts. It is also pertinent to note that it was mentioned in the licence of the driver of the vehicle, which was so proved on the record as Ex. C -15 that he was entitled to drive LMV (NT). Therefore, he never obtained distinct licence for driving the ''transport vehicle''. In view of the said judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court the unladen or laden weight of the vehicle becomes meaningless when one is to deal with ''transport vehicle''. Therefore, it cannot be held that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence for driving the vehicle and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the opposite party was competent to repudiate the claim of the complainant.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was not having valid licence, his claim should be allowed on non -standard basis. In support of his case, he has submitted few authorities, which are reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayan Prasad Appa Prasad Pathak, : II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). This judgment has different facts and is not applicable to this case. He has also -cited another judgment reported in case of Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., : IV (2003) SLT 497 : I (2008) ACC 139 (SC) : (2003) 6 SCC 420. Its paras 8 and 9 are noteworthy. The same are reproduced hereunder: 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that) the National Commission and the State Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that holding of a valid driving licence was a condition precedent to claim any damages from the Insurance Company even when the accident in question has occurred due to no fault or act of the driver. He submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. has no application to the facts of this case.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents who has supported the orders of the State Commission as well as that of the National Commission. So far as the facts of this case are concerned, there is hardly any dispute, therefore, we can safely proceed on the basis that the vehicle in question was damaged due to a mechanical fault and no fault of the driver. For the purpose of the argument, we may also proceed on the basis that the driver of the car did not have a valid driving licence. The question then is: can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the Company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver.

HOWEVER , in the above circumstances, it stood proved that the vehicle in question was damaged due to mechanical fault and no fault on the part of the driver was attributed. This fact does not stand proved in the instant case.

LASTLY , learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., : II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) : II (2010) SLT 672 : (2010) 4 SCC 536, wherein the Apex Court has described the chart which reveals where the claim is to be settled at non -standard basis. It runs as follows:

The item regarding the licence or genuine licence or valid licence is conspicuously missing. Therefore, the same is not applicable to the present case.

THIS Commission in the case of Mudipalli Ellappa Ravi v. M/s. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,, IV (2012) CPJ 816 (SC) : revision petition No. 1272 of 2012 decided on 6.9.2012, held: We have heard Counsel for the petitioner and have considered her submissions. She only submits that the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy could be waived by the respondent Insurance Company and the claim could have been settled at least on non -standard basis, if not, as full claim going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amlendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (decision dated 25.3.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 27032010). We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected because if the nature and kind of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy did not entitle the petitioner even the settlement of his claim even on non -standard basis. The breach being of fundamental in nature, we see no merit in these contentions. The order passed by the State Commission is justified on record and does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed.

AGGRIEVED by that order, SLP bearing (civil) No. 39343 of 2012 was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP vide order dated 14.1.2013 and upheld the order passed by this Commission. In another case, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithipati Satthiyya and Ors., : IV (2011) CPJ 133 (SC) : Revision Petition No. 2717 of 2007, a Bench of this Commission, headed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, held: The driver of the vehicle in question was holding a license to drive LMV only and there was no endorsement on the licence authorizing him to drive the taxi which was a transport vehicle to carry passengers. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, : I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held that if driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive the transport vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse for the loss caused to the vehicle in the accident.

IN that case also, petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 12832 -12833 of 2012 was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 3.12.2012 affirming the order of the National Commission.

UNDER the circumstances, the complainant has no bone to pluck with the respondent. The revision petition is meritless and the same is, therefore, dismissed.