KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.397/09 JUDGMENT DATED.29.3.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd; Chemmattumattom Junction, Kattappana 685 508 Idukki district. Reptd by the Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Ltd. -- APPELLANT Divisional OIffice No.1 Kottarathil building, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv. M.Nizamudeen) C.Raju, Matha Stores, Avaruvila House, Kattappana- 685 508, -- RESPONDENT Idukki District. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in CC.13/08 in the file of CDRF, Idukki under orders to pay a sum of Rs.31,205/- and Rs.2000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that his Tata 909 Ex lorry met with an accident at Madurai on 18.5.05 and the vehicle sustained severe damages. The opposite party repudiated the claim. 3. The opposite party has filed version pointing out that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was driven by one Mani who was having only license to drive light motor vehicles. The vehicle involved is a medium goods vehicle. The driver was not holding any effective driving license to drive the particular vehicle. Hence the claim was repudiated. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, P1 to P5 and Exts.R1 to R6 5. I find that the Forum has held that the opposite party has not proved that the driver was not a duly licensed driver. The Forum has also relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala in Purushothaman K.M Vs. Remesh Prabhu & Ors. 2008 (4) KHC 243. I find that it is an admitted case in the complaint itself that the driver at the time of the accident was one Mani. The opposite parties have produced Ext.R2 the photocopy of the license of the above Mani. Ext.R2 shows that the driver is only empowered to drive light motor vehicles. He is not empowered to drive medium goods vehicles. Evidently, the vehicle involved was a commercial one. I find that the decision cited in the order of the Forum has no relevance in the present matter. The above decision was with respect to an MACT claim. Therein the period of driving license of the person had expired and it was renewed subsequent to the accident. I find that as per Ext.R4 policy, it is specifically mentioned that the person driving the vehicle should hold an effective driving license. The parties are bound by the terms of Ext.R4 agreement. 6. In the circumstances, I find that the opposite parties are not liable to indemnify or compensate the complainant. 7. In the result, the order of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT | 
