Case nº Revision Petition No. 4773 Of 2013 with Ia/7945/2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 08, 2014 (case H.K. Lokesh Vs Divisional Manager, Oriental Life Insurance Co. Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr.Shekhar G. Devasa and Mr.Aljo K. Joseph, Advocates. |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain, President, Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member and Mr. Vinay Kumar, Member |
| Resolution Date | January 08, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Delay of 49 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to order dated 14.6.2013 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.658/2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has upheld the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hassan District, Hassan, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner against repudiation of his claim for the loss suffered by him on account of accident to his commercial vehicle, Tata Tanker, had been dismissed.
Both the Fora below have upheld the repudiation of petitioner''s claim on the ground that he was transporting hazardous goods like diesel without obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned under Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 read with Rule 9 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel has strenuously urged that endorsement on the driving licence under Rule 9(3) of the said Rules was a mere formality inasmuch as the driver was having a driving licence and a certificate, dated 20.7.2011, issued by the Karnataka State Transport Department Officers Association, authorized to undertake One Day Refresher Training Programme for drivers of such vehicles under a Notification issued by the State Government. Learned counsel has also pleaded that having regard to the nature of the goods, the claim of the petitioner should have been considered by the Insurance Company sympathetically.
We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel. Rule 9 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read as follows:
Rule 9. Education qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods -- (1) On and from the date of commencement of this Rule, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to hum life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also possess minimum educational qualification of a pass in the 10th standard or...
To continue reading
Request your trial