- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 25.1.2006 rendered in Complaint Application No. 4 of 2004 by the learned Kachch District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bhuj dismissing the complaint with no order as to costs.
(2.) IT is suggested that the complainant (present appellant) got an insurance for his Tata Sumo motor vehicle bearing registration No. GJ -12 -F -8857 from the opponent and that the policy was for the period 2.12.2002 to 15.5.2003; that the complainant paid premium and the policy was issued by the Insurance Company; that the said vehicle met with an accident on 7.12.2002 and damage was caused to the vehicle and the complainant, as alleged, was required to spend Rs. 63,300 for the repairing of the vehicle, that the claim was lodged with the Insurance Company claiming compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. On 5.3.2003, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim contending that on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle in question did not have legal, valid and effective driving licence. It is the say of the complainant that the driving licence of the driver was renewed by the RTO, Bhuj with retrospective effect from 3.7.96 to 9.3.2006. The learned Forum, considering the contentions of both the sides negatived the claim of the complainant.
(3.) IT has been submitted by Mr. J.N. Talpada, learned Advocate for the appellant (original complainant) that on the date of the accident i.e. 7.12.2002 the driving licence of the driver -cum -owner of the vehicle had expired but the licence was subsequently renewed with retrospective effect covering the date of the accident. It is further submitted and as stated in the appeal memo the absence of legal, valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident could not have any effect on the claim for the damage to the vehicle inasmuch as the absence of valid driving licence on the date of the accident would not be a fundamental breach of the conditions of the policy and therefore non -standard claim @ 75% of the claim amount should have been granted by the Insurance Company and that is how there is deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. It is submitted by Mr. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for the respondent Insurance Company that in the instant case the accident took place on 7.12.2002, the driver -cum -owner of the vehicle was not having legal, valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and therefore there is breach of the conditions of the policy and the claim has been repudiated by the Insurance Company for the breach of the policy condition. It is further submitted that under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driving licence could not have been renewed retrospectively after 30 days of the expiry of the licence.;