F.A. No. 38 of 2014. Case: Casa Bhat Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.. Goa State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | F.A. No. 38 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate and For Respondents: Ex Parte |
| Judges | N.A. Britto, J. (President) and Vidhya R. Gurav, Member |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2, 2(14), 2(21), 2(47), 3 |
| Judgement Date | June 20, 2014 |
| Court | Goa State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
N.A. Britto, J. (President)
1. A Consumer complaint filed by the Complainant on 16.9.2003 to recover from the OP, the insurer, a sum of Rs. 3,87,637 with interest @ 21% p.a. came to be dismissed by order dated 28.3.2014, and, hence the present appeal. Notice of this appeal was given to the respondent, the insurer, who was duly served, but chose to remain absent on 5.6.2014 as well as on 12.6.2014 and as such we have proceeded ex parte against the respondent.
2. Some facts as disclosed from the record are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. The Complainant is a firm of three partners. The Complainant owns a pickup of 2000 model which has been referred to by the Complainant as Mahindra Utility Van. The said pickup has been registered under No. GA 02 V 6573 as a light commercial vehicle having unladen weight of 1610 kgs. and gross weight of 2750 kgs. The Complainant obtained from the Respondent/OP, the insurer, a goods carrying commercial vehicle (open) motor policy at an estimated value of Rs. 2.4 lacs valid from 28.6.2002 to 27.6.2003. One of the conditions of the policy is that the person driving the vehicle should have an effective driving licence at the time of accident and should otherwise be not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence.
3. Complainant's pickup met with an accident on 19.11.2002 at about 1500 hours at Chiclaim involving truck No. KA 269292 and sustained heavy damage. At the time of the accident Complainant's pickup - light commercial vehicle was not carrying any goods, and, according to the Complainant the accident took place due to the rash driving on the part of the driver of the said truck. At the time of the accident, the Complainant's pickup was being driven by one Kalandarsab, son of Abdulsab Balakandi, having a licence to drive a non transport light motor vehicle from 8.4.2002 to 7.4.2002 issued by RTO, Bagalkot. The damage caused to the Complainant's pickup was assessed by Shr. R.R. Prabhu, a duly licensed Surveyor, at Rs. 1,01,422.
4. The Respondent/OP rejected the claim of the Complainant filed on 20.11.2002 by letter dated 28.3.2003 stating that the driver had a non-transport i.e. non-professional driving licence which was not valid for driving a transport vehicle. The Complainant having approached the South Goa District Forum, the complaint came to be dismissed by the impugned order. The President of the learned District Forum was of the view that the Complainant's driver had a valid licence to drive the vehicle, and, therefore, the Complainant was entitled to be compensated on non-standard basis but faltered in assessing the compensation payable at Rs. 1,00,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. The other two members of the learned District Forum were of the view that the driver of the Complainant's vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and therefore was not entitled for any compensation. As per the majority view the complaint came to be dismissed.
5. We have heard Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, the learned Advocate of the Complainant. As already stated the Respondent/Insurer has chosen to remain absent
6. Mr. S.S...
To continue reading
Request your trial