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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more