MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Dr. Srikant Pandey, Presiding Member and Dr. Monika Malik, Member
Ankit Sharma – Appellant
versus
Branch Manager, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.1227 of 2023 and First Appeal No.1228 of 2023
Decided on 8.11.2024
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Sections 14 and 15 – Insurance of Vehicle – Damage of vehicle in accident – Repudiation of claim – Not justified – Driver of vehicle having valid & effective driving licence to drive subject vehicle at the time of accident – On the date of accident validity of driving licence of driver was effective for a period of 30 days from its earlier expiry, i.e. 3.1.2022 – Section 14(2), proviso second extends effectiveness (validity) of driving licence for a period of 30 days from date of its expiry – Said 30 days period was to be expired on 2.2.2022, in between on 29.1.2022 accident took place & deceased died – If he would have been alive he could have applied for renewal within 30 days – OP would be liable to pay complainant amount as assessed by surveyor on net of salvage basis – The insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,89,119/- on net of salvage basis as has assessed by the Surveyor vide his report dated 12.05.2022 (R-4). It is also directed that the insurance company shall pay Rs.15,00,000/- as per personal accident cover for Owner Driver. The insurance company is also directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the aforesaid amounts from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Commission i.e. 20.01.2023, till payment. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19 and 20)
Result: Appeals allowed.
ORDER
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member:
The aforesaid appeals by the complainant/appellant are directed against the orders dated 31.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.38/2023 and 39/2023, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaints filed by him.
2. Since facts of both appeals are similar in nature and parties are also same, therefore the aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. Facts of the case are taken from First Appeal No.1227/2023 unless otherwise stated.
3. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant’s Fortuner car bearing registration number MP-07 CD-8191 was insured with the opposite parties/respondents-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 18.08.2021 to 17.08.2022 for Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.13,91,119/- It is alleged that on 29.01.2022 in Gwalior, a truck bearing registration number UP-63 T-2215 dashed against the subject car in which the complainant’s father Late Om Prakash Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) died. In the said accident the subject vehicle was completely damaged, of which intimation was given to the insurance company. On claim being made, the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that deceased Om Prakash Sharma, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the insurance company the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking IDV of subject vehicle i.e. Rs.13,91,119/- with interest @ 12% p.a and costs. Also, in another complainant the complainant sought relief of Rs.15,00,000/- towards claim of personal insurance cover of his late father.
4. The insurance company in its reply before the District Commission has submitted that the insurance company had already repudiated the claim vide letter dated 10.05.2022 and therefore the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the complainant did not make Smt. Mithilesh Kumar Sharma, the wife of deceased Om Prakash Sharma as a party to the complaint and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. During investigation, it was found that on the date of accident, late Om Prakash Sharma was driving the vehicle from Chhatisgarh to Gwalior and he was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle which had already expired on 03.01.2022 whereas the accident took place on 29.01.2022. Since the deceased did not take any steps for its renewal and there was violation of policy terms and conditions and Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’). The insurance company has thus rightly repudiated the claim. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5. The District Commission dismissed the complaints filed by the complainant/appellant as aforesaid.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission did not consider this aspect that the driver of the subject vehicle Late Om Prakash Sharma was having a driving licence for the period from 04.01.2017 to 03.01.2022 and as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, there was 30 days’ period to get its renewed. However, before expiry of 30 days i.e. on 29.01.2022 the accident took place. It cannot be said that on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. He argued that the District Commission without considering the provisions of Section 14 and 15 of Motor Vehicles Act that a driving licence shall remain effective and valid for statutory period of thirty days after its expiry in a case where application for its renewal is made within thirty days has erred in dismissing the complaint. He therefore prayed for setti
If application of renewal of motor vehicle licence is made within 30 days of date of its expiry, licence continues to be effective & valid without a break as renewal dates back to date of its expiry.
The court established that procedural fairness is essential in adjudicating claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly regarding the validity of driving licenses and the opportunity for partie....
Contract of Insurance - A contract of Insurance between the concerned parties is on the principle of “Uberrima fides” i.e. absolute good faith on part of both the contracting sides.
The insurance company is exonerated from liability for compensation as the driver lacked a valid driving license, establishing a breach of policy conditions.
Burden of Proof – The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.
A driving licence remains valid for thirty days post-expiration under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, preventing insurers from denying liability during this grace period.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.