1. Brief fact of the case of Complainant is that he purchased one three wheeler Auto on 22.08.2018 from O.P. No. 1 bearing Regd. No. OD-30-B-8688 with Auto Rikshaw Permit and insured his vehicle with O.P. No. 2 vide policy no. 345492/31/2019/418 valid from 23.08.2018 to 22.08.2019 and is having D.L. vide no. OD3020090007968 with permission to drive Three Wheeler Passenger.  It is alleged that on 11.09.2018 the said vehicle met with an accident and the fact was registered with P.S., Malkangiri vide G.D. No. 018 dated 12.09.2018 and also to the O.P. No. 2, and the surveyor of O.P. No. 2 verified the documents and assured to pay all the expenses .It is alleged that inspite of his repeated visit to O.P No. 2, they repudiated the insurance claim against alleged vehicle, thus showing deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay entire expenses with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to him.
    
2. After receipt the notice from this Fora, the O.P. No. 1 appeared and filed his counter version admitting the sale of alleged vehicle to the complainant but denied the allegations contending that since the alleged vehicle is validly insured with the O.P. No. 2, as such O.P.No.2 is liable to pay the compensation and showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared in this case and filed their written version admitting the issuance of insurance against the alleged vehicle, but denied the allegations of complainant contending that the complainant has no valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident and the vehicle was insured under passenger carrying transport vehicle and the D.L. does not permit to drive any transport category vehicle, hence showing their no liability, with other contentions they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Parties have filed certain documents in support of their case without any objection from either side. Heard from the parties through their respective A/R at length and perused the materials and documents available in the record.
    
5. Complainant has filed copy of (i) Copy of R.C., (ii) Copy of D.L. vide no. OD-3020090007968, (iii) Copy of insurance policy vide no. 345492/31/2019/418, (iv) Copy of contract carriage permit (auto rikshaw permit) vide no. OR/30/CC/AR/2018/64 dated 06.09.2018,  (iv) Copy of repudiation letter dated 15.11.2018, (v) Copy certificate of fitness, (vi) Copy of tax invoice towards repair of alleged vehicle, (vii) Copy of Tax Invoice vide no. 15 dated 22.08.2018, (viii) Copy of Extract of GD No. 018 dated 12.09.2018 of Malkangiri P.S., (ix) copy of BPL Card, (x) Copy of Ration Card, (xi)Copy of receipt issued Indian Red Cross Society. Whereas the O.P. No. 2 did not choose to file any documents.
    
6. After careful observation, it is ascertained that the submission of complainant is that he had valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident whereas the contentions of O.P. No. 2 is that the complainant had no valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident.  Now the question arose whether the complainant had valid and effective D.L. at the material time of accident ?
   
   In this connection, we have gone through the R.C. Book of the alleged vehicle bearing Regd. NO. OD-30-B-8688 and ascertained that the unladen weight is 434 K.G., whereas section 2(21) of the M.V.Act, 1988 emphasizes that : Section 2(21) “Light motor vehicle”  means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight  of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road – roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms”.  Since the unladen weight of the alleged vehicle in question is only 434 kilograms, the same is coming under the purview of light motor vehicle. Further, the Complainant has filed the GD No. 018 dated 12.09.2018 of Malkangiri P.S. to prove his submissions.  We have carefully gone through the said information and ascertained that not a single word is uttered therein to show that alleged vehicle was carrying any passengers or goods at the material time of accident, hence we have no hesitation to consider that the alleged vehicle is coming under the purview of light motor vehicle.On the other hand, the Opp. Party has miserably failed to prove that the alleged vehicle at the material time of accident was carrying any passengers or any goods by producing any documentary evidences and without any documentary evidences, the plea of O.P. No. 2 cannot sustain, as the alleged vehicle was running empty at the time of accident.

           Further we have gone through the D.L. of complainant and ascertained that the D.L. vide no. OD-3020090007968 was issued to drive three wheeler non transport on 23.02.2009 valid till 14.05.2019 by the Authority which was valid at the time of the incident occurred. And since the alleged vehicle in question was running empty using without any passenger or any goods, as such the said vehicle is coming under the purview of Light Motor Vehicle and the owner – cum – driver is very much competent and can drive the alleged vehicle, hence we feel, the insurance policy validly and effectively covers the risk of the alleged vehicle.

Further we would like to make it clear that since the alleged vehicle is coming under purview of light motor vehicle, as such no separate endorsement is highly required to be mentioned in the driving licence to that effect.  Hence, the non consider of the genuine insurance claim by the O.P. No. 2 is clear violation of natural justice and repudiation of insurance claim is not justified.     

In this connection, the Complainant draws our attentions towards the landmark verdicts of the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.A. No. 5826 of 2011, the case between Mukund Dewangan Vrs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para no. 46 (iv) that

“The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect”.    

7. As per the discussions made in the foregoing paras, in our view, the Complainant is entitled to receive the repaired amount from the Opp. Party. Further as per submissions of Complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the Complainant has tried his level best to get the genuine claims from the Opp. Party No. 2, but failed, for which he is compelled by the Opp. Party No. 2 to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such he is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering his suffering, we feel Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards costs will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The Opp. Party No. 2, being the insurer of the alleged vehicle, is herewith directed to refund the repaired amount of Rs. 29,025.18/- to the Complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 15.11.2018 till payment.  Further the Opp. Party is also herewith directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.

   Since no specific claim is made against O.P. No. 1, no order for him. 

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of January, 2020.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.