ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter, referred to as District Forum -I, for short) dated 15.9.2004 in Complaint Case No. 118 of 2004; Kirpal Singh V. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

(2.) THE case of the complainant in brief is that his Car Toyota Qualis, Maxi Cab, Model 2002 weighing 1470 kgs. (LMV) having seating capacity of 9+1 (driver) stood insured with the O.Ps. for the period from 14.7.2003 to 13.7.2004. It is averred that the said vehicle met with an accident on the night of 6/7.12.2003 at 11.15 p.m. at Zirakpur - Ambala Highway and DDR No. 20 was lodged on 7.12.2003 and F.I.R. No. 317, dated 7.12.2003 was registered with Police Station Dera Bassi. It is further averred that at the time of accident only the driver was travelling in the vehicle. The vehicle in question was totally damaged in the accident. On 7.12.2003 the complainant informed Sh. Kulvir Singh Gill, Development Officer of the O.P. Insurance Company about the accident. A Surveyor was deputed who came at the spot on 7.12.2003 and with his consent the vehicle was removed from the spot of the accident to Emm Pee Motors Limited, Chandigarh, the authorised dealer of the vehicle. All documents were supplied by the complainant with estimate, which was prepared and it came to Rs. 6,43,050/ -. The O.Ps., however, repudiated the claim vide letter dated 20.2.2004 on the ground that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. As per the complainant the driver had a licence meant for driving Light Motor Vehicle and since maxi/taxi cab is a Light Motor Vehicle so the licence in question was valid as per law settled by the Hon ble Apex Court and various High Courts and also by this State Commission. The complainant served a legal notice on the O.Ps. on 13.3.2004 but the O.Ps. denied the claim of the complainant and hence this complaint seeking indemnification of the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,43,050/ - on account of loss of vehicle and Rs. 50,000/ - on account of harassment, mental agony and defective service. In addition the complainant has also claimed Rs. 25,000/ - as litigation costs with interest on the above amounts and special cost.

(3.) VERSION of the O.Ps. is that the Surveyor, who was deputed assessed the loss of Rs. 3,19,500/ -. However, the claim of the complainant was denied on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of driving the vehicle in question. It is stated that the driving licence of the driver was valid for Light Motor Vehicle, MCM (NT) whereas the vehicle in question i.e., Toyota Qualis is a transport vehicle and for such a vehicle specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle is required which was not there on the licence of the driver and hence at the time of accident the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and was driving the vehicle in question in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the repudiation is justified.