ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. ABDUL SALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(for short, 'Act') by challenging order dated 08.01.2008, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, 'State Commission') in (First Appeal No.A-517 of 2007).

(2.) Respondent/Complainant's case is that he had insured his goods transport vehicle bearing no. KA-01AC-7860 with the Petitioner for the period from 30.11.2005 to 29.11.2006. The vehicle met with an accident on 08.02.2006 and information was conveyed to the Petitioner immediately. The surveyor appointed by the petitioner immediately inspected the vehicle and recommended the claim for Rs.3,00,000/-towards repairs and replacement of parts. The respondent submitted the entire required document in July, 2006. By the letter dated 29.06.2006, petitioner repudiated the claim stating that at the time of the accident, the driver did not possess a valid licence, namely he had licence to drive only Light Transport Vehicle, whereas the vehicle in question is Medium Goods Vehicle. The driving license at the time of accident had endorsement and authorization from 22.2.2005 to drive transport vehicle which fact was not considered by the petitioner while repudiating the claim. The driver of the vehicle has experience to drive all types of goods vehicles since 6 years and he was not barred from driving the type of vehicle covered by insurance policy. Non-settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The respondent had to undergo lot of mental stress due to the repudiation of the claim.

(3.) Petitioner in its written statement has admitted that respondent is the registered owner of a Medium Goods Vehicle bearing No.KA-01 AC which was insured for the period from 30.11.2005 to 29.11.2006. The policy issued is subject to various items, conditions and the legal liability of the insurer is governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no deficiency in service, delay or disservice on the part of the petitioner. The intimation about the vehicle having met with an accident was reported to the insurer on 08.02.2006 and immediately the company arranged for survey and inspection of the vehicle. The final survey report is dated 7.6.2004. The respondent submitted all the required documents in July, 2006. On verification of documents, petitioner had no option than to repudiate the claim on the ground that on the date of the accident, the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having an effective driving license. The vehicle in question is a MGV-Goods Carriage vehicle as per the description given in the registration certificate. The gross weight of the vehicle is 10,500 kgs. The vehicle was driven by one Mr.Zabiulla who did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. He possessed license for light motor vehicle only valid for the period from 26.5.2000 to 26.5.2020 and had obtained an endorsement dated 22.2.2005 to 21.2.2008 to drive goods vehicle and Maxi Cab. The endorsement in the driving licence states "Authorized to Drive Transport Vehicle (Goods Carriage) not exceeding 7500 Kgs. GVW." As per complaint dated 08.2.2006 given by Dr.Sharath Chandra of Aurveda Pratistana Hospital, the driver of the vehicle in question dashed the vehicle against Maruti Van bearing No. KA-03/P-3435, lost control and dashed against compound wall of the hospital. The driver did not possess license to drive MGV Goods carriage vehicle of which the gross vehicle weight is 10,500 Kgs. Since, the driver possessed the licence to drive transport vehicle (goods carriage) not exceeding 7,500 kgs. Whereas the gross weight of the vehicle in question is 10,500 Kgs and the class of vehicle is different. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated with due application of mind. If the Forum comes to the conclusion that the insurer has to consider the claim of the complainant, the same cannot be beyond Rs.2,11,468.99/- less salvage value of Rs. 25,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,86,468/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report dated 7.6.2006. The complaint is not valid as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner and therefore, liable to be dismissed.