Back
2017 Supreme(J&K) 767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ali Mohd. Magrey, JJ.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Mehraj-Ud-Din Bagwa - Respondent
CIMA No. 216 of 2013
Decided On : 04-07-2017
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the driver must hold an effective driving license at the time of the accident, and the breach of this specific condition of the insurance policy justified the insurance company's denial of the claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(10), Section 3, Section 14(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly focusing on the requirement of an effective driving license and the distinction between a license to drive a transport vehicle and a license to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature. The court emphasized that the driver must hold an effective driving license at the time of the accident, and highlighted the breach of this specific condition of the insurance policy as the basis for rejecting the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the J & K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowing the respondent's complaint for a motor vehicle accident claim. The vehicle, carrying gas cylinders, met with an accident, and the insurance company denied the claim on the ground that the driver did not have an endorsement in his driving license to carry hazardous substances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver did not hold an effective driving license for carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature at the time of the accident, which was a specific condition of the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company was within its right to reject the claim, and the impugned decision of the Commission was set aside.
Issues: The key issue was whether the driver's lack of an effective driving license for carrying hazardous goods at the time of the accident justified the insurance company's denial of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly emphasizing the requirement of an effective driving license and the distinction between licenses for transport vehicles and transport vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned decision of the Commission was set aside. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company with the Commission was directed to be returned to the Insurance Company.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the J & K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Commission') dated 23.07.2013 whereby the respondent's complaint No. 03/2011 has been allowed. Consequent thereto, an award for Rs. 1.71 lacs as assessed by the surveyor of the Insurance Company (the appellant herein) was passed in the complainant's favour. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 44,000/- as compensation for loss of earning and profit during the intervening years and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of litigation charges was also awarded resulting in a total amount of Rs. 2.20 lacs.
2. When the appellant filed the present appeal, it was required to deposit 25% of the awarded amount before the said Commission which it has done.
3. The facts are that the complainant's vehicle was being driven by the complainant's driver Mohammad Amin Denthoo from Srinagar to Ladakh. The vehicle was a truck being registration No. JK01G-4223. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident at Khulsi Chowk on 09.07.2008. The loss to the tune of Rs. 4.5 lacs was claimed by the respondent claimant which was turned down by the appellant (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle did not have any endorsement in his driving license authorizing him to carry hazardous substances.
4. The said Commission heard the parties and passed the impugned order. The relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:-
"2. We have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. As it is, existence of a valid insurance cover to damaged vehicle is admitted as also the accident in which the loss was suffered by the vehicle. Only objection taken is that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was not having endorsement on his licence which disabled him to drive the vehicle carrying gas cylinders categorized as hazardous goods, which on appraisal does not appear to be sound enough to hold water for the simple reason that as per details given and admitted, the accident, the way it happened did not happen due to anything attributable to mishandling of gas cylinders those were carried in the vehicle. That the vehicle was being driven in any manner not conducive to safe carriage of the cylinders is not at all alleged. In these circumstances, lack of requisite endorsement on driver's licence pales into insignificance, it being an irregularity in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, notwithstanding. Obviously, an endorsement on licence, authorizing the driver to carry hazardous goods in the vehicle signifies a particular level of proficiency on part of driver to handle the cylinders and instantly mishandling of gas cylinders is neither pleaded not proved as the cause of accident even remotely. Admittedly, the accident has occurred due to collision with some road block.
3. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and an award for Rs. 1.71 lac as assessed by surveyor of the company is passed in complaint's favour which he was entitled to in 2008 at the time of loss and hence together with Rs. 44,000/- as compensation for loss of earning and profit during intervening years and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges, bringing total liability of respondent insurance company to Rs. 2.20 lacs, which be paid to complainant or deposited in this Commission within four weeks from now. Matter stands accordingly disposed of. Office to follow up."
5. From the above, it is evident that the said Commission allowed the claim only on the ground that the gas cylinders which were being transported in the said vehicle did not in any manner contribute to the accident. Thus, the said Commission allowed the claim on the understanding that as the gas cylinders which it regarded as hazardous goods did not contribute to the accident having occurred, there was no question on the part of the insurance company to have denied the claim.
