- (1.) THE complainant had insured his vehicle with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. On 11.8.1995, the vehicle met with an accident. The vehicle was sent to the Motor Vehicles Inspector for inspection and he issued a certificate noting damages. Cost of repair charges was estimated in a sum of Rs. 34,395/ -. The vehicle having been insured with the opposite party, they are bound to settle the insurance claim. Therefore, the complainant made the claim to the opposite party for the payment of the amount. The opposite party did not settle the amount, but repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver had no effective driving licence. The repudiation is improper. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint.
(2.) THE opposite party submitted that they arranged an independent surveyor and loss assessor who after surveying the vehicle, determined the net liability of the insurer at Rs. 12,000/ -. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant because at the time of the accident, the driver who was incharge of the vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence. The complainant had employed a driver by name Palanichamy who had a Light Motor Vehicle licence which expired on 16.3.1993. But the licence was renewed only from 16.8.1995 namely after two years and 5 months. The accident had taken place in between. The licence can continue to be valid and effective only for a period of 30 days from its expiry. Therefore, the driver did not have an effective licence on the date of accident. Therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated.
(3.) THE learned District Forum accepted the claim and ordered the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - with interest at 12% and hence this present appeal by the Insurance Company. Before the lower Forum, the complainant did not produce the insurance policy. The opposite party also did not produce either a copy of it or the original of the policy. Now, when the matter was taken up on 19.1.2004, the original policy has been produced and a copy of the same has also been furnished to the Counsel for the respondent. There cannot be any objection to this Commission looking it in the same since this is not a case where it can be contended that the complainant has been taken by surprise by production of a document. First of all, it is a standard form of policy of insurance. Further, the complainant who ought to have had either the original or the first copy of the same has not cared to produce it before the lower Forum. The relevant clause runs as follows: "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive : Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence." The date of commencement of the insurance was on 11.4.1995 and it expired on 10.4.1996. The National Commission has held in a decision 1996 1 CPR 78, that if the driver did not have an effective driving licence on the date and even pending appeal, licence has been renewed, still it cannot protect the interest of the insured, since the licence can be effective only from the date of such renewal and in the case on hand, the renewal was applied very late and the renewal cannot date back to the date of expiry. If a licence that has been granted, had expired, it will be deemed to be effective for a period of 30 days. But in this case, the licence was renewed on 16.3.1990 and the same expired on 15.3.1993. Thereafter, it was renewed only on 16.8.1995. Therefore, if at all there could have been an effective driving licence enabling the driver to drive the vehicle it could have been only till 14.4.1993. After that, there was no licence much less an effective licence enabling the driver to drive the vehicle till it was renewed on 16.8.1995. Therefore, on the date of accident, i.e., 11.8.1995, the vehicle was driven by a person who did not have any effective or valid licence and thus it was driven by an unauathorized person and hence it follows that the main condition having been breached, the Insurance Company is not liable to meet the claim of the complainant. Consequently, it follows that there is no liability to make payment and in such circumstances, the repudiation of claim cannot be termed as a deficiency in service. In our view, therefore, the decision rendered by the lower Forum cannot be sustained.;