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

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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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