Skip to main content

No claim if vehicle driver does not have valid licence: NCDRC

An insurance company is not liable to pay any claim if the insured transport vehicle, which met an accident, is driven by a person having a licence to drive only light vehicle, the apex consumer body has observed.

"A person who does not hold licence to drive transport vehicle cannot drive transport vehicle and if he drives transport vehicle, insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability," the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) said while allowing a revision petition of insurance company New India Assurance Co Ltd.

The insurance firm had sought setting aside of the state commission order of dismissing its appeal against the district forum's order granting compensation to vehicle owner Birender Mishra, whose vehicle had met with an accident.

Setting aside the order of district consumer forum which had asked the insurance firm to pay compensation of Rs 1,15,975 with 9 per cent per annum interest and litigation cost to Mishra, the NCDRC said the vehicle's driver was "not authorized to drive transport vehicle whereas, vehicle in question which met with an accident was insured as commercial vehicle."

The apex consumer commission, presided by Justice K S Chaudhary, also held the observation of state consumer commission that capability and skill of the driver to drive particular vehicle determines liability of the insurance company is "apparently not correct."

"Insurance company can be held liable only if driver holds valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident," Justice Chaudhary observed. "Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated May 9, 2008 passed by the state commission in appeal of the company and order of district forum dated January 7, 2008 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs," the commission said.

Mishra had in his complaint to the district forum said that his vehicle, insured with the insurance company, met with an accident in May 2004, and suffered extensive damage. He had told the forum that he had to spent Rs 1,15,975 on the repairs of the vehicle and submitted claim to the company, which, however, repudiated it on the ground that the driver was holding two driving licences and the vehicle was registered as a taxi, but driver was not holding appropriate licence for it.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-no-claim-if-vehicle-driver-does-not-have-valid-licence-ncdrc-2030672

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more