Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

Section 279, 337, 338, 427 of PIC and Section 184 of M. V. Act. Among the 8occupants of the Insured vehicle, 2 of one family (Shahs) and 6 of another group(Acharya), one of 6 of Acharya group, Mrs. Javherben Shah has confirmed in writingthat rent towards the use of vehicle was to be paid by the NRIs and the remaining 5members of Acharya group had left India.The vehicle was used for hire at the time of accident in violation of the terms andconditions of the Insurance Policy and hence there is no doubt that the provisions ofthe policy conditions were violated at the material time of accident as there wasevidence that the vehicle was plying on hire as per the statement of Smt. JeeverbenShah which was duly recorded in the Police FIR. The insured had also suppressed thematerial fact in not declaring the injuries to the two of the occupants in violation ofcondition 1 of the policy. the MACT case would centre around the lawful use of thevehicle and consequent liability. Motor Insurance Policy is governed by the M. V. Actwhich is a Statutory Act and any violation constitutes violation of the laws of land whichbecomes punishable offence. In the facts and circumstances, the repudiation of claimby the Company cannot be faulted and there is no case for interference by this Forum.Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI - 375 of 2004 - 2005Shri Francis RodriguesVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 29.7.2005Shri Francis Rodrigues, had taken a Policy from The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., tocover his for Total Insured Depreciated Value of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The insured submittedclaim form to the company informing damage to the vehicle due to accident on13.7.2004.The Company vide letter dated 7.11.2003 informed Shri Rodrigues that it was observedfrom the R. C. Book that his vehicle is registered as LMV Tourist Taxi whereas thedriving licence of the driver, Mr. Vijagula Pitchai, was only for LMV and not for TouristVehicle. As per the policy conditions, the driver is required to hold an effective drivinglicence both in terms of validity and the class of vehicle that is being driven at the timeof accident. The Company, therefore, regretted their inability to consider the claim ongrounds of non possessing a valid transport licence at the time of accident.Not satisfied with the decision of the Company, Shri Rodrigues represented to theCompany on 25th November, 2003 stating that he had asked driver Pitchai to take hiscar due to emergency and did not realize that he did not have valid transport licence.The Company again replied to him on 11th February, 2004 stating that the matter wasreferred to their higher authorities who also concurred with the stand taken as per theletter dated 7.11.2003.Aggrieved by the decision of the company, Shri Rodrigues represented to theOmbudsman vide letter 16th August, 2004 stating that he owns the tourist vehicle andholds a tourist licence but on the date of accident he had to take of another driver ashe was down with fever and therefore, requested intervention in settlement of claim.From the records provided by the company, it is observed that the driver Shri Pitchaiwas not holding a valid Driving Licence to drive a Tourist Vehicle at the material timeof accident, which amounts to violation of policy condition as well as a breach of theprovisions of the M. V. Act. Motor Insurance Policy is governed by the M. V. Act whichis a Statutory Act and any violation of the laws of land which becomes a punishableoffence.