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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more