Skip to main content

NCDRC denies insurance claim over invalid driving licence

The apex consumer commission has denied insurance claim to a man for his commercial vehicle, saying that at the time of accident the driver was holding a licence for only light motor non-transport vehicle.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice K S Chaudhari, passed the order while allowing a revision petition filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd against Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The state commission had upheld an order of district consumer forum asking the firm to pay Rs 2,45,983 to the complainant Mainuddin, owner of the commercial vehicle.

"At the time of accident, driver of vehicle was not possessed with the valid driving licence and in such circumstances, OP (firm) has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and district forum committed error in allowing the complaint and state commission further committed error in dismissing appeal.

"Hence, revision petition is to be allowed," NCDRC said in an ex-parte order as Mainuddin failed to appear before it.

The apex commission noted that the driver was holding licence to drive LMV (light motor vehicle) non-transport, which was not valid for the commercial vehicle he was driving.

In its order, NCDRC also noted that to drive a transport vehicle, licence is issued for three years, whereas for light motor vehicle, licence is issued for 20 years.

Licence was issued to driver, valid from September 20, 2004 to September 19, 2024, but he was not permitted to drive transport vehicle, it noted.

Mainuddin had earlier told the forum that his vehicle, insured with firm, met with an accident in October 2006 and, thereafter, he sought an insurance claim of Rs 2,79,983.

As the claim was not settled, Mainuddin filed a complaint before the district consumer forum.

The insurance firm in its appeal had submitted that the vehicle was a transport vehicle which was driven by a person not holding valid driving licence.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ncdrc-denies-insurance-claim-over-invalid-driving-licence-115010900620_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more