PREM DEVI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Sikar in case No. 127/2003 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -appellant under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was dismissed.

(2.) IT may be stated here that the vehicle Mahendra Utility bearing No. RJ 23G -0944 belonging to the complainant -appellant was insured with the respondent United India Insurance Company for the period from 27.10.2000 to 26.10.2001 through cover note No. 237282 and on 26.7.2001, that vehicle had met with an accident on Highway within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chaksu, as a result of which, vehicle in question was damaged and information about the said accident was given by the appellant -complainant to the respondent and upon this, survey was got conducted by the respondent through Surveyor. Thereafter, for the damages caused to the vehicle in question, a claim was preferred by the appellant -complainant before the respondent, but the same was repudiated by the respondent on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was only having a licence of light motor vehicle and not of transport vehicle and, thus, there was breach of condition of the policy and hence, Insurance Company was not liable. Thereafter, the appellant -complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sikar, but the same was dismissed by the learned District Forum, Sikar through impugned order dated 3.7.2003 holding inter alia that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a licence of transport vehicle, but he was only having a licence of light motor vehicle and therefore, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, thus, the respondent Insurance Company was not liable. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) IN this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant -complainant is that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective licence of light motor vehicle and not of transport vehicle, but respondent Insurance Company could not escape liability merely on the ground that driver was not holding licence for driving transport vehicle. Apart from this, respondent Insurance Company has failed to prove that the insured (appellant -complainant) was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy. Furthermore, the vehicle in question was having only the weight of 2750 kg. and so, the vehicle in question comes within the category of light motor vehicle and, thus, the licence of the driver of the vehicle in question should be treated as legal and valid one. Hence, repudiation of claim of the complainant -appellant by the respondent Insurance Company on the ground that driver was not having licence of driving transport vehicle was not justified and, thus, findings of the learned District Forum rejecting the claim of the complainant -appellant on the same ground that driver was not having licence of driving transport vehicle could not be sustained and liable to be set aside as they suffer from basic infirmity, illegality and perversity.