Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1220

2009(5) Supreme 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Suresh Chandra Aggarwal — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2003
Decided on : 10-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Kiran Suri, Ms. Pankaj Bala Verma, S.J. Amith, Advovates.
For the Respondent(s):Vivek Vishnoi, Mukesh Verma, S.K. Sharma, Rajneesh Kumar, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 15 – When an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the licence is renewed only prospectively – In the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence. (Para 16)
        (b) Insurance Laws – In view of the driver not having a valid licence on the date of occurrence, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the claimant. (Para 17)
        JT 2001 (Suppl.2) SC 218 – Relied upon.
        (1999) 6 SCC 620 – Distinguished.
        (2008) 1 SCC 696 – Referred.
       Facts of the case :
        1. The insurance policy of the respondent for his car was valid from 31st May, 1991 to 30th May, 1992. Unfortunately, on 29th February, 1992, the insured vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death of the driver and extensive damage to the car. On 3rd March, 1992, the claimant lodged a claim of Rs.1,00,000/- with the appellant for total loss of the vehicle.
        2. The appellant repudiated the claim of the claimant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident.
        3. The claimant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
        4. The District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant as compensation for damage to the car, besides costs.
        5. The appellant as well as the claimant preferred appeals to the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed both the appeals.
        6. Appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the National Commission which was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court :
        National Commission’s judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.—

1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against order dated 3rd April, 2002, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short “the National Commission”), whereby the Revision Petition filed by the appellant—The New India Assurance Company Ltd., has been dismissed and order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Betul (for short “the District Forum”), directing payment of compensation to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) as affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (for short “the State Commission”) has been upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the appeal are:

On 31st May, 1991 the claimant, the sole respondent in this appeal, obtained from the appellant, a comprehensive insurance policy in respect of his Maruti Saloon 800 car. The policy was valid from 31st May, 1991 to 30th May, 1992. Unfortunately, on 29th February, 1992, the insured vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death of the driver and extensive damage to the car. On 3rd March, 1992, the claimant lodged a claim of Rs.1,00,000/- with the appellant for total loss of the vehicle.

3. The appellant appointed a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the car. On the recommendation of the surveyor, the driving licence of the deceased driver was got verified from the office of the Regional Transport Authority (Licensing), Bhopal. The certificate issued by the said authority showed that the driving licence of the deceased driver was valid from 26th October, 1988 to 25th October, 1991 and then from 23rd March, 1992 to 22nd March, 1995. On receipt of the said verification report, the appellant repudiated the claim of the claimant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident as his licence was valid only up to 25th October, 1991, which had been renewed by the licensing authority only with effect from 23rd March, 1992 whereas the accident took place on 29th February, 1992.

4. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellant, the claimant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Betul claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The claim was contested by the appellant on the ground that there was a breach of one of the conditions in the insurance policy inasmuch as the accidental vehicle was being driven by a person who, at the time of accident, did not hold an effective driving licence. The District Forum, upon consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, accepted the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimant as compensation for damage to the car, besides costs.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the appellant as well as the claimant preferred appeals to the State Commission. The stand of the appellant was that they were not liable to pay any compensation because the vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have an effective licence at the time of accident whereas the grievance of the claimant was with regard to the inadequacy of the compensation awarded. The State Commission found that although the licence of the deceased driver was valid up to 25th October, 1991 but the same had been renewed subsequently and, therefore, since he had not been disqualified to hold such a licence, the claim of the claimant could not be rejected on the ground that the licence had not been renewed on time. The compensation awarded was also held to be adequate. Accordingly, both the appeals were dismissed.

6. Not being satisfied with the approach of the State Commission, the appellant preferred a Revision Petition before the National Commission. Following the decision of this Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.1, (1999) 6 SCC 620, the National Commission, as noted above, dismissed the Revision Petition. It is this order which is under challenge in thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1220

2009(5) Supreme 338SUPREME COURT OF INDIAD.K. Jain and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd. — AppellantversusSuresh Chandra Aggarwal — RespondentCivil Appeal No. 44 of 2003Decided on : 10-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT When an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence.

Cases Referred (2)

2009(5) Supreme 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
New Inda Assurance Co. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Suresh Chandra Aggarwal — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2003
Decided on : 10-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
When an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the licence and the date of its renewal, there is no effective licence in existence.