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

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

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more