Appeal No.129/04


1.Babu Lal

2.

Suresh sons of Shri Bhanwar Lal Appellants


V.

Managing Director,Chairman,the United India Insurance Co.Ltd.& anr.

Respondents

Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Abhishek Sharma,counsel for the appellants

Shri Amar Nath Pareek,counsel for the respondents



Date of judgement: 17.3.2009

This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellants against the order dated 8.12.03 passed by the District Forum,Nagaur in complaint no.122/03,by which the complaint of the complainant appellants was dismissed on ground of licence.


It arises in the following circusmtances:


That the complainant appellants had filed a complaint against the respondents insurance company before the District Forum,Nagaur on 11.8.03 interalia stating that their vehicle Mahendra jeep bearing registration no.RJ.21/G-1047 was got insured with the respondents

2


insurance company for the period 25.10.01 to 24.10.02 for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. It was further stated in the complaint that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 8.7.02 as a result of which the vehicle in question was damaged and information of that incident was given to the concerned authorities and necessary papers were sent. But even then through the letter dated 28.5.03,the respondents insurance company had repudiated the claim of the complainant appellant interalia stating in the following manner:


“On the captioned subject,we have observed that at the time of accident of the vehicle driver Shri Hanuman Ram was not having valid effective driving licence to drive transport vehilce(Light Goods Vehicle) as per Motor Vehicle Act,Hence your claim is not admissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicle Act and the same is repudiated.”

Thereafter the present complaint was filed stating that a sum of Rs.45,238/- were spent in getting the repair of the vehicle but a sum of Rs.1,41,571/- were claimed.


A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company before the District Forum,Nagaur on 4.11.03 admitting the fact that the claim was rightly repudiated on the ground of licence as the driver of that vehicle was only authorised to drive LMV but he was not authorised to drive LTV and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order had dismissed the complaint interalia holding that the claim was rightly repudiated on the ground of licence.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellants.


3


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellants is that for all purposes the licence to drive LMV be treated as a valid licence for driving LTV as the vehicle in question was not a heavy transport vehicle and thus repudiation of the claim of the complainant appellants by the respondents insurance company on the ground of licence was not justified and appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.


We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.


In this case,in our considered opinion,taking into consideration that the vehicle in question was a jeep and that could not be treated as a heavy transport vehicle and taking into consideration that the licence which was held by the driver was of driving light motor vehicle and taking into consideration that driving a vehicle by a licence in which no endorsement was made to drive LTV would amount to some extent violation of the policy in an irregular manner but for that the whole claim should have not been repudiated by the respondents insurance company and similarly the complaint should have not been dismissed on that ground alone and the claim should have been treated as sub standard.


On point of compensation.


It may be stated here that on file there is a survey report of the surveyor, Shri Prem Ratan Agarwal dated 12.8.02 where the surveyor had come to the conclusion that the loss net payable for the damage to the vehicle was to the tune of Rs.54,677/- and in our considered opinion,the complainant appellants are entitled to 75 % of the amount of Rs.54,677/- that comes to Rs.41,008/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing

4


of the complaint and further they are entitled to Rs.5000/- as amount of cost of litigation as the complainant appellants had to file the complaint first before the District Forum and thereafter they have to file the appeal before this Commission.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellants is allowed,impugned order dated 8.12.03 passed by the District Forum,Nagaur is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant appellants is allowed in the manner that the respondents insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.41,008/- to the complainant appellants with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made alongwith Rs.5000/- as amount of cost of litigation.




Member Presiden