BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. V M JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the order in O. P. No.868 of 1997 of the District Forum, Ernakulam. The opposite party is the appellant. The complainant's grievance before the District Forum was that his Maruti Car bearing Registration No. KL-7/q- 6024 which was insured with a comprehensive policy with the opposite party for the period from 18.3.1997 to 17.3.1998, the vehicle met with an accident on 16.8.1997. He undertook the repair works at Indus Motors Company Limited and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.4,003.40. He intimated the opposite party as to the said accident and putforth the claim. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that at the relevant point of time the complainant had no valid driving licence. He therefore filed the complaint. The opposite party filed their version reiterating the aforesaid stand. After considering the (sic.) against the plea raised by the complainant and the opposite party, the District Forum directed the opposite party/insurance Company to consider the claim of the complainant on merit, quantify the compensation and disburse the amount with 12% interest per annum from 4.9.1997. It also fixed time limit of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order for complying with the aforesaid direction. Cost was also awarded to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said direction the opposite party has come up in appeal.

(2.) The insurance policy was valid for the period from 18.3.1997 to 17.3.1998. Since the accident took place on 16.8.1997, it was during the currency of the insurance policy. The complainant had a driving licence enabling him to drive light motor vehicle from 23.7.1995 to 16.12.1996. His case is, though he applied for renewal within 30 days of expiry of the licence, since he had crossed 60 years of age he had to produce Medical Certificate which he had not produced alongwith the application for renewal; so he had to apply again for renewal of the same and it was renewed with effect from 20.5.1997 till 19.5.2002. From the aforesaid admitted fact it is clear that on 16.8.1997 when the accident took place, the complainant was not having an effective valid licence to drive the vehicle. It is precisely on this ground the appellant repudiated the claim of the respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that, since the conditions of the policy insist that the Insurance Company can repudiate the claim if the vehicle was driven by a person who has no effective licence, the District Forum went wrong in making the aforesaid direction. It was urged by the learned Counsel that, since admittedly the complainant was not possessing an effective licence for driving the vehicle that itself is opposed to Sec.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as per conditions of the policy the Insurance Company will stand exonerated because at the relevant time the complainant was not having effective licence to drive the vehicle. The learned Counsel also referred to the decision of this Commission reported in Thomas Mathew V/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1997 3 CPJ 90 in support of the aforesaid contention. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent maintained relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in R, unless the insured was responsible for the accident and if the accident occurred as a result of collision even though for the relevant time the vehicle was being driven by a person who has no effective licence at that time, the exclusion clause will not apply. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh State Commission reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Lekhiram, 1998 1 CPJ 63. Reference was also made to the decision of this Commission in Appeal No.1114/1997 wherein this Commission relying on the decision in B V NAGARAJU V/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HASAN, 1996 2 CPJ 28 held that, since he has not in any way contributed to the accident the Insurance Company will not get exonerated. The learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard sought to distinguish the decision in Nagaraju's case, referred to earlier, by pointing out, the said decision was rendered in a matter where the goods vehicle carried 9 persons where the permit limit was 6. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel the facts in the said decision is distinguishable.