|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHEN you drive a vehicle in a public place without a valid driving licence issued by the competent authority, you are not just violating the Motor Vehicles Act. You are also violating an important motor vehicle insurance policy condition, thereby exposing yourself to unnecessary risks. This is one area where even the court will not come to your rescue. In fact, in one such recent case, the apex court made it clear that it would not condone such violation of the law of the land, and said that the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim of the policy holder in such cases (New India Assurance Company vs.Amrit K. Nehra, revision petition No 2658 of 2006). Following a collision with a truck in Delhi, the Maruti Esteem being driven by the consumer Amrit K Nehra sustained extensive damage. However, when he sought indemnification of his loss from the insurer, he was told that he would not be entitled to any payment as he did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He had only a driving licence issued by the State of Illinois (US), which was not valid in India. Aggrieved, the client filed a complaint before the court. Here, both the district consumer disputes redressal forum and the state consumer disputes redressal commission, Delhi, held such repudiation to be unjustified and asked the insurance company to pay. The national consumer disputes redressal commission, however, disagreed. It pointed out that under Section 3 of the MV Act, it is an offence to drive a vehicle without a valid licence. Under Section 2 (10) of the Act, the driving licence has to be issued by a competent authority in India. In this case, the client had a driving licence issued by the State of Illinois in the US, which was valid for driving within that state. He did not have a valid licence issued by the Indian authorities, nor did he have an international driving licence. The apex court also dismissed the view of the lower court that the consumer’s Illinois licence should be treated as a continuation (or renewal) of the driving licence obtained by him earlier while in India, which had since expired. Saying that this was violative of the law of the land, the apex court said the state commission had erred grossly. Referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance vs Swaran Singh (2004, 3 SCC 297), where it was held that compensation could be awarded even in the absence of a driving licence. The court pointed out that in that case, third party rights were involved. This, on the other hand, was a case of self-damage, and so, that judgement did not apply here. In fact in the case of National Insurance vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007- 3SCC 700), the Supreme Court had clarified further that the principle laid down in the case of Swaran Singh in respect of third party damages would not be applicable to own damage cases. The commission also referred to the case of Oriental Insurance vs Prithviraj (2008- 2SCC 338), wherein a similar view was expressed by the apex court. In the end, it held that since the person at the wheel did not possess a valid driving licence, the insurance company was not liable to compensate the consumer. It, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower courts. So, remember, whether you are driving the vehicle yourself or giving your vehicle to someone else to drive, make sure that the person has a valid driving licence. If you are hiring a driver, then you have to be doubly careful and ensure that the licence that he is holding is valid, and even more important, is genuine and not fake. The Supreme Court has, in fact, made it clear in the case of Laxmi Narain Dhut that even if the licence has been renewed, if the original was a fake, then the renewal does not make it genuine, and it would be considered a fake. In other words, in such cases, too, the insurer is not liable to indemnify your loss in case of an accident. However, this would not apply to third party claims. In fact, if there are third party claims, then the insurer will have to indemnify the amount, but if so advised, may even recover the same from the insured, the court has said.
|
||
|
|
||
