Heard the learned counsel for  the parties.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The unfolded story  of    the complainant, is that  the complainant being owner of a Tata Tanker bearing Regd.No.OR-14C-7072 has purchased the policy from the OP under Carrier Legal Liability Policy  covering  the risk from 15.01.2010 to 14.01.2011 and the tanker vehicle was also insured with the OP under GCCV public carriers policy  w.e.f. 17.03.2010 to 16.03.2011. It is further case of the complainant that  on 26.062010  the vehicle while transporting  the above petroleum products met with an accident at Lathikata market area. Therefore, the claim was made and accordingly informed the police. Since, no amount was settled,  complainant filed the present complaint.

4.           The OP  filed the written version stating that  they have repudiated the claim on the ground  that the driving license of the driver having no endorsement  to drive the vehicle having carrier goods of dangerous and hazardous nature. So, the OP repudiated the claim on the above reasons. Therefore, OPs  have no deficiency in service on their part.

5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “Basing  on all these facts observed above, we hereby made liable to the OP and thereby direct the OP to pay the amount  as regards   to loss of insured vehicle as well as products therein amounting Rs.4,24,196/- (Rupees Four lakh twenty four thousand one hundred ninety six) only to the complainant. Further the OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards mental agony, harassment and cost of this case to the complainant.

               All the above orders are to be carried by the OP within two months from receiving  of this order failing which @ 9 % interest per annum shall be chargeable from the date of claim i.e. 23.07.2010 over and above all the ordered amount till realization.”

6.               Learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver has not produced the necessary certificate to drive the Goods carrier  of dangerous and hazardous nature.  Unless the driver  has got the valid driving license, as such the relief should not be granted to the complainant. Further he submitted that the impugned order was passed by the learned District Forum by ignoring the pleadings  on record. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.           Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is clear valid driving license of the driver. He also showed  the driving license of the driver. Therefore, he submitted that the OP being duty bound has badly repudiated the claim. However, learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. He supports the impugned order.

8.               Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.                    It is admitted fact that the Carrier Legal Liability Policy was purchased by the complainant from the OP. It is also not in dispute that during currency of the policy the accident took place. It is also not in dispute that the OP repudiated the claim basing  on the fact that the driver has no  valid driving license   for driving the vehicle products which is hazardous  and dangerous goods. It is settled in law that the complainant is required to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.         In this case during currency of the policy, the accident took place  where the driver has got the driving license to drive   such vehicle. Now the question arises whether the  driver has got necessary driving license as required U/S-14 (2) of the Act  to drive the transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous and hazardous nature. In this regard, copy of driving license with other documents  show that   the driver has not only got driving license for driving the  heavy vehicle  but  also has undergone one day refreshment course as required under provision to Section 14(2) of the M.V. Act at relevant period.  Section-14(2) states that in case of driving license of the driver  with regard  to  his training to drive vehicles carrying goods  of dangerous and hazardous nature has to undergo a one day course duly certified by Authority.  Since, the driver in question  has got  period of desired training for one day  and also has   of license the period covering the date of accident, we are of the view that the driver has got valid  of the driving license  as per Section-14(2) of the Act. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the OP is illegal. In the result, the complainant has  proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We have gone   through the surveyor’s report and it is submitted that the  surveyor has only made  survey  in respect of the damage of the vehicle  and come  to the conclusion of  loss  at Rs.3,27,696/- whereas the complainant  asked for Rs.96,500/- more for damage to products.  Since, the surveyor report with regard to loss to the vehicle should be acceptable  as per settled principle of law unless it is  biased, we accepted the surveyor’s report towards loss at  Rs.38,000/- so far product concerned in the policy  for products. There is another insurance policy for the vehicle only. Annexure-9 and 10 shows that claim intimation issued covering the damage to the petroleum product.

11.         They also  disclose that there is loss whereas loss Rs.3,27,396/- even if the surveyor’s report is silent  on the aspect the claim application, we accepted. We are of the view that there is loss of Rs.3,27,696/-.45. Now the complainant is entitled to get the amount so far petroleum product  and other charges is concerned i.e. Rs.3,27,696 +  Rs.38,000/- =Rs.3,65,696/-. Thus, the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,65,696/-.

12.             In view of aforesaid discussion, while confirming the finding of the learned District Forum, we hereby modified the impugned order  by directing the OP to pay Rs.3,65,696/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days  and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment cause to the complainant, failing which all will carry 12 % interest per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment made.

                 The appeal is disposed of accordingly.                  

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

               DFR be sent back forthwith.