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

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