BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR


APPEAL No. 745/2007


Oriental Insurance Co. through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Anand Bhawan, S.C. Road, Jaipur.

..Appellant-OP


VS


Smt. Fori Bai W/o Late Shri Mahendra Meena, R/o Village Sanvar, Tehsil & District Bundi.

..Respondent-Complainant


Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. Ashok Mehta, counsel for the Appellant

Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, counsel for the Respondent


ORDER Dated:24/03/2009


PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER


This appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Bundi whereby the Appellant Insurance Co. has been directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 1,15,490/- along with interest @ 9% per annum besides Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.


Shri Mahendra Meena, Husband of the Complainant and Registered Owner of the motorcycle in question got his motorcycle insured with the Appellant Company covering personal accident of two persons to the extent of Rs. One Lac each. On 30.12.2004, Shri Meena met with an accident while driving the motocycle resulting in his death and damage to the motorcycle for which two claims one for own damage and the other for personal accident were filed but the Insurance Co. rejected those claims on the ground that the motorcycle was being driven by Shri Meena who had no driving licence. Thus, the file was closed as 'No Claim'. Feeling aggrieved, the complaint was filed which was allowed as indicated above.


The point for consideration is whether the Insurance Co. was justified in rejecting the claims of the Complainant on the ground of non-production of driving licence. It is an admitted position that at

2


the time of accident, Shri Meena was driving motorcycle. The policy goes to show that the person driving the motorcycle should have driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. It is clear from the terms and conditions of the policy that the Driver should have a driving licence to drive the vehicle. In this particular case, the driving licence had not been produced despite giving opportunities to the Complainant. Production of driving licence is pre-condition before allowing the claim. The statements of the Complainant were also recorded wherein she disclosed that the motorcycle was given by her Father in dowry and the registration certificate was issued in the name of her Husband Shri Meena. It was admitted by her in exhibit OP-5 that no licence was obtained by her Husband. Although the Complainant in her affidavit has deposed that her Husband had a driving licence which she had seen but it was obligatory on the Complainant to produce driving licence in absence of which the claim could be rejected by the Insurance Co.


The learned counsel for the Appellant has cited 2008 (III) CPJ 158 R.R. Industrial Products & Another vs National Insurance Co. wherein it has been held that burden to prove holding of valid driving licence at accident time lies on the Complainant. As burden was not discharged by the Complainant, no relief was granted. Another citation is 2008 (I) CPJ 194 Oriental Insurance Co. Limited vs Prema wherein it has been held that driving of two-wheeler in public place without licence amounts to violation condition. It was held that Insurance Co. was not liable under the policy.



The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs Oriental Insurance Co. Limited 2003 ACJ 1441 and submitted that in the instant case, the driver of the other vehicle was responsible for the accident and therefore the claim should not have been rejected for want of driving licence.


In our considered view, this judgement has no application to the facts of this case. In Jitendra Kumar's case (Supra), the vehicle got fire due to mechanical reasons and due to said fire, the said vehicle was burnt. The facts in the said judgement were different from the facts of the instant case. A recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. vs Prabhu Lal 2008 (I) CPJ 1 (SC) held that the Insurance Co. is not liable when the driver was not holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The deceased Shri Meena was not having valid driving licence on the

3


date of the accident and as per the terms and conditions of the policy also, only the driver who is having valid driving licence on the date of accident is entitled for the insurance claim. As the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence and therefore the Insurance Co. was justified in rejecting the claim of the Complainant.


Consequently, the appeal deserves to be accepted. The impugned order of the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.



Member Presiding Member


Hira lal