AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE revision petitioner Smt. Sandhya has filed the present petition against concurrent orders of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Udupi District and the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Both forums have dismissed the complaint of the revision petitioner holding that at the time when the deceased husband of the Complainant was driving the Pick up Van with registration No.KA18-9165, he did not possess a suitable motor vehicle license permitting him to drive it.
THE vehicle was covered under the insurance policy obtained from the OP/United India Insurance Company. OP/Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on 1.10.2010 on the ground that driver was not holding a valid driving license when the accident took place on 22.11.2009. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that her husband Rathnakara Acharya was the driver-cum- owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Mahendra Pick up Van with registration No.KA18-9165. In accident of 22.11.2009, the vehicle was completely damaged and Rathnakara Acharya was killed. It is alleged that repudiation of the insurance claim on the ground of violation of "Driver Clause " in the policy conditions was arbitrary and unjust. The Complainant claims that at the time of the accident, her husband was holding a valid driving license. The revision petition has been filed by post and petitioner Sandhya has sought to be exempted from personal appearance. Her prayer is to remand the matter back to Udipi District Forum for fresh reconsideration.
THE District Forum has observed:- "On careful reading of section 3, it is quite clear that to drive transport vehicle, the driving licence should necessarily contain the endorsement of the licencing authority authorizing to drive transport vehicle. The driving licence produced at serial no. (2) of the complainants deceased husband, no where discloses that he was authorized to drive the transport vehicle. On the contrary it discloses that he was licenced to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle and his licence was valid to that limited extent. As complainant ''s husband Rathnakar Acharya ''s driving licence does not bear the required endorsement that he was authorized to drive transport vehicle, I/we for one feel that the repudiation by the OP is rightly made. "
THE State Commission has concurred with the view of the District Forum observing that:- "The date on which the accident occurred, the complainant ''s husband was driving a transport vehicle for which he should have hold an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle. In this regard, the DF referred to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988 and culled out the contents of section 3. Based on the same it comes to the conclusion that to drive transport vehicle, the driving licence should necessarily contain the endorsement of the licencing authority authorizing to drive transport vehicle. The relevant document produced by the appellant/complainant in this regard does not show that he was authorized to drive the transport vehicle. There was no proper endorsement of the licence produced by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum. "
The main ground for challenge to the concurrent findings is that the District Forum and the State Commission should not have dismissed the case of the Complainant at the stage of the admission itself. The District Forum should have recorded the evidence of the Complainant/petitioner. The revision petitioner also states that the District Forum had failed to consider the memo of dated 5.3.2011 filed on behalf of the Complainant. A copy of this memo has been annexed to the revision petition as Annexure-4. In this memo, the Complainant/revision petitioner had stated that in the light of the details therein, the vehicle in question should be treated as transport vehicle. A perusal of the order of the fora below shows that it is exactly the same manner in which the vehicle in question has been treated. It has been held that the vehicle being a transport vehicle, required the license which the deceased Rathnakara Acharya did not have, at the time of the accident. His driving license did not carry an endorsement that he was authorized to drive a transport vehicle. This is precisely the ground on which the State Commission and the District Forum have upheld the repudiation of the claim by OP/United India Insurance Company Ltd.
IN the final analysis, we do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below. Consequently, the revision petition No.3358 of 2011 is dismissed and the impugned order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.1339 of 2011 is confirmed. No order as to costs.