LAWS(HPCDRC)-2013-10-1

ANGREJ SINGH Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

Decided On October 30, 2013
ANGREJ SINGH Appellant
V/S
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appears for the appellant, though on the previous date, an Advocate put in appearance as proxy for the Counsel for the appellant. We have heard learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. Appellant Angrej Singh filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 4,00,000, on account of insurance money, besides seeking compensation and litigation cost. It was alleged by the appellant that he owned a Mahindra Pick -up used for carriage of goods, which was insured with respondent No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 and during the currency of insurance policy, vehicle met with an accident resulting in total loss. Also, it was alleged that claim was lodged with the respondents, but they repudiated the same on flimsy grounds that there were four unauthorized persons onboard the vehicle, at the time, when it met with an accident and also the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.

(2.) COMPLAINT was contested by the respondents and they supported the repudiation of claim on the grounds that against the registered seating capacity of three persons, there were five persons (including driver) on board the vehicle and also driving licence was not valid and effective.

(3.) DRIVING licence of Anil Kumar was produced as Annexure C -2. Genuineness of the document, i.e. the driving licence, has not been disputed by the respondents. As per this licence, Anil Kumar is authorised to drive motorcycle, LMV and LGV. Term 'LGV' has apparently been used to connote 'Light Goods Vehicle'. Learned District Forum has held that term 'LGV' is nowhere used in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and, therefore, this term cannot be taken to authorize the holder of licence to drive a transport vehicle. Also, it has been observed by the learned District Forum that licence was issued on 24.6.2009 and it purports to be valid upto 23.6.2013, meaning thereby that it was valid for four years, but as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a licence authorizing the holder to drive a transport vehicle, cannot be valid for a term beyond three years.