Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

First petitioner is the owner of a Ford Icon Car bearing register No. KL5/P-4883. The said car was insured with the first opposite party. Since the first petitioner died 2^nd to 5^th petitioners were impleaded as additional petitioner's 2 to 5 as per order is IA 244/08 as the legal heirs of the petitioner. Insured car met with an accident on 5..1..2006 at Di ndigel, Tamil Nadu and police registered a crime with crime No. 17/06. According to the petitioner as a result of the accident car was damaged nd was brought to Kairali Ford, Kottayam, the authorised service station of the Ford Company. The vehicle was

-2-

completely repaired by the company and the petitioner brought repaired vehicle on

21..1..2006 by paying an amount of Rs. 52,261/- . At the time of accident the vehicle was driven by a driver who have an effective and valid driving licence, as licence No. 701/85/KK. Since the car has validly insured with the opposite party, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, opposite party is liable to pay an amount up to 75 % for the damage caused to the vehicle. Original petitioner preferred a claim before the opposite party. The opposite party as per letter dtd: 3..3..2006 repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that driver has no valid licence for driving a non transport vehicle and the licence is valid only todrive transport vehicle and his licence for non transport vehicle was expired on 18..7..2005. The petitioner states that act of opposite party in rejection of the claim of the petitioner is clear deficiency of service. So, the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 52261/- with 12% interest from 5..1..2006 up to date of realisation. Petitioner also claims an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party claim of the petitioner is rejected on valid and sufficient reason. Opposite party contented that driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident, was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive a private light motor vehicle. That is at the time of accident licence of the petitioner had been expired and there after it has not been renewed. According to the opposite party on valid grounds claim waas repudiated on valid grounds. Opposite party further contented that the surveyor of the opposite party had assessed the actual loss of the vehicle as

-3-

Rs. 38,596/-. So, petitioner is only entitled for entitled that amount. Opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for deter minations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Petitioner produced copy of driving license particulars of the petitioner , said document is marked as Ext. A2 As per Ext. A2 the petitioner has valid driving licence to

ply light motor vehicle . The opposite party produced license granted to the petitioner to ply for non transport vehicle from 21..10..2003 to 30..9..2018 and said document is marked as Ext. B2. Counsel for the opposite party vehumently argued that driver of the vehicle is not having a valid license to drive a private vehicle at the time of accident and driving licenseof the driver had expired on 18..5..2005 and there after it has been renewed. Vehicle insured by the opposite party is a private car (non transport vehicle) so, as per the terms of the policy the driver has not holding valid license at the time of accident. We are of the opinion that as per the motor vehicle amended act no person shall be granted authorisation to drive transport vehicle unless he satisfies the licencing authority that he had one year experience in driving light motor vehicle. Further

-4-

more from Ext. B2 it can be seen that licensing authority had given a license to the petitioner to drive a Non transport vehicle and is valid at the time of accident kepting reliance on the decision rendered by the Karnataka State Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And another Vs. Mallikarjunayya and another reported in (2008 CTJ 1144 (CP)(SEDRC) Hon'ble State Commission stated that if the vehicle undisputably a light motor vehicle (LMV) and the driver has an endoresement to drive LMV transport vehicle he could will said to have a valid driving license. Here admittedly vehicle involved in the accident is a light motor vehicle and the petitioner has a license to drive non transport motor vehicle. We are of the opinion that the reason for repudiation. Stated by the opposite party is not sustainable. The Hon'ble National Commission M/s. Benowall Aggrawall Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, 2005 to CPR 130 (NCDRC) stated that in case of insurance for damage caused to vehicle recommendation of the surveyor is to be looked into. Opposite party produced the surveyors report and document is marked as Ext. B3. As per Ext. B3 surveyor assessed loss sustained to the petitioner as Rs. 38,596.22. So we are of the opinion that allowing the said amount to the petitioner is reasonable. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is to be allowed and petitioner is entitled for relief sought for. In the result opposite party is ordered to pay petitioner an amount of Rs. 38,596/- to the petitioner along with the interest at the rate of Rs. 9% from the date of repudiation of claim to till realisation. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- cost of the

-5-

proceedings. So, opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of the order.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of December, 2008.