Skip to main content

Consumer forum rejects monetary claim - Learner's license is not an effective license

The South Goa Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (SGCDRF) dismissed a complaint filed by parents of a deceased victim of a fatal accident that took place in Ponda in 2004, against the New India Assurance Company, Margao, as the deceased Sunil N Kadam was riding the vehicle with a learner's license.

The order stated that the claim of the complaint, the father of the victim, Narsing Nana Kadam, was rightly repudiated by the insurance company.

Kadam, a resident of Bicholim, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency-in-service against the insurance company praying for a sum of 2 lakh alongwith 18% interest and also for a sum of 50,000 towards costs and legal expenses.

As per the facts of the case, the deceased who was employed as a mechanical engineer at a pharma company located at Verna Industrial estate owned a motor cycle insured with the insurance company under a policy that was valid up to July 25, 2005.

On November 8, 2004, at around 6.45pm, when the deceased was returning home, a tipper truck dashed the motorcycle. The nature of the injuries sustained by the motorcyclist lead to his death on the spot. The accident was registered at the Ponda police station on November 9, 2004, and the tipper truck diver was booked under Sections 279, 304(A) IPC.

The insurance company repudiated the claim for 2 lakh by a letter dated June 6, 2005, stating that their claim cannot be entertained since there was breach of policy conditions and Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The company stated that the deceased was holding a learner's license which cannot be termed to have been an effective license and that learner's license holder or a temporary license holder, according to them would not be covered by the insurance policy.

Writing the order on behalf of the forum, president Jayant Prabhu and member Savita Kurtarkar observed from the FIR and other documents placed on record that the deceased was the only rider of the motor cycle without any pillion rider.

"As such, it becomes clear that a person could be said to be driving a vehicle with a valid driving license only when the driver who is having a learner's license is accompanied by a person who is having a valid driving license," read the order.

Kadam, a resident of Bicholim, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against New India Assurance Company praying for a sum of 2 lakh along with 18% interest and also for a sum of 50,000 towards costs and legal expenses.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more