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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more