NATIONAL INSRUANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MEENA AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (in short the 'National Commission').

(3.) RESPONDENT was the owner of a vehicle - a Maruti van, which was the subject matter of insurance with the present Appellant for a period from 27.1.2003 (sic) 26.1.2004. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 12.6.2003 and was damaged. The estimate of the cost of repair was prepared by Automobiles Satya (sic) Bilaspur. According to him the estimated expenditure on total repair of the (sic) was Rs. 2,00,000. Intimation of the same was given by the complainant to the (sic) Appellant and claim was made. The same was rejected on the ground that the (sic) of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and the vehicle which (sic) private vehicle was insured for personal use, but was being used as a taxi for (sic) marriage parties. A marriage party was being transported in the vehicle (sic) charging rent of Rs. 2,100 when the accident occurred. The driver did not po(sic) valid licence and, therefore, the vehicle was being plied against the terms (sic) insurance policy. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum S(sic) Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, rejected the claim petition. An appeal was preferred (sic) the State Consumer Dispute. Redressal Commission, Rajpur (in short the 'State Commission'). By order dated 17.10.2005, the appeal was allowed. It was held that it would be proper to declare the claim of complainant as 'Non -standard' consequent to the violation and breach. Therefore, the present Appellant was directed to pay Rs. (sic)0,000, i.e. 75% of Rs. 1,20,000 i.e. the amount assessed by the surveyor of the insurance company along with 9% interest. The only reason given by the State Commission was that even if the vehicle was being used as a taxi, there was no fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. A revision petition was filed before the National Commission which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. The National Commission held that even though the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle and the driver did not have a valid driving licence, there was no fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. According to the Appellant the insured vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle is required to hold an appropriate licence. If the driver who was driving the vehicle at a relevant point of time did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle, there is a breach of the conditions of the policy and such plea was available to be raised as a defence.