PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal  No. 1321 of 2009 vide which the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind, Haryana in complaint No. 440 of 2008 was ordered to be dismissed.  During the course of hearing, the petitioner was asked to file legible copies of the driving license as well as copy of insurance policy, which he did on 04.3.2013.

2.     The facts in brief are that the petitioner/complainant insured his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-56-4850 with the respondent/opposite party vide policy No. 3004/51852626/00/000 with effect from 05.6.2007 to 04.6.2008.  The vehicle is stated to have turned turtle on 21.12.2007 and at that time, it was being driven by Sonu, son of Ran Singh.  The claim filed by the complainant before the insurance company was repudiated vide letter dated 02.4.2008 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license.  The license of the driver was valid for motor cycle WG and LMV-NT, whereas the said vehicle does not come under the definition of LMV-NT, as it was TATA Spacio vehicle.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint saying that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and there was no endorsement on the license of the driver for driving the transport vehicle.  An appeal against this order was dismissed vide impugned order by the State Commission saying that Sonu, son of Ran Singh was not authorized to drive a commercial vehicle and hence, the complainant was not entitled for any insurable benefits in respect of the loss suffered by him.  It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

3.     At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, saying that a vehicle whose weight is less than 7500 kilograms is to be called Light Motor Vehicle.  It has been made clear in application to the Registering Authority made by the complainant that the weight of the said vehicle was 1770 kilograms and it was an LMV.  In view of these facts, the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission deserves to be set aside.  The vehicle in question was a personal vehicle and not a commercial vehicle.  At the time of accident, the driver was driving the vehicle all alone.  The damages in the case had occurred for reasons other than the fault of the driver.

4.     We have examined the material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced in front of us.  The copy of the license of Sonu son of Shri Ran Singh issued by the Licensing Authority, Jind indicates that Sonu, son of Ran Singh had been authorized to drive the vehicles “M/cycl. WG LMV-NT.”  It is very clear therefore, that Sonu was not authorized to drive a commercial vehicle.  The copy of the insurance policy indicates that the carrying capacity of the vehicle was nine and it was Spacio gold 10 STR PCV.  It has been stated in the policy that the person driving the vehicle should have an effective driving license.  The case of the complainant is that the driver of the TATA Spacio was holding a valid driving license with a specific endorsement to drive the vehicle carrying passenger policy items.  However, the case of the respondent is that the vehicle TATA Spacio does not come under the definition of LMV-NT.  The Learned State Commission has rightly relied upon the case law cited as United India Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Arvind Kumar Rajak, III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC), wherein the National Commission relying upon various judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clearly held that if there was no endorsement on the driving license for driving a particular type of vehicle, the driver cannot be held to be having a valid driving license.  It is very clear from the facts of the present case that the driver Sonu did not possess the license for driving the vehicle in question.  The fact that at the time of accident, he was alone in the vehicle as stated by the complainant does not carry any relevance to the present case. 

5.     In view of these facts, the petition is ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission and District Forum is upheld.