BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

ATHYDERABAD.

FA   

Between:

The New India 

Rep. by 

D.No. 2/789, 1^stNagarajupet, Kadapa city.                                                                                                

                                                                  K. Rami Reddy

S/o.  

R/o. 13/614-2, Reddy Street

Mydukur Mandal

Kadapa Dist.Complainant. 

Counsel for the Appellant:                         

 Counsel for the Resp:                      

CORAM:

                                                         MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

1)       Rs. 2,36,000/-  

2)                   

3)                             

4)                

5)                   therefore authorised to drive the vehicle in question,   

6)                      

7)               

8)                                       in            Nagendra         

9)                              

license for driving transport vehicle which in fact        made clear   

“In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.

We may state that  

 In the matter of Nasir Ahmed (SLP No. 7618 of 2005), the vehicle was a luxury taxi passenger carrying commercial vehicle. There also the driving licence issued in favour of the driver was to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and hence the driver could not have driven the vehicle in question. In that case too, the licence was renewed for a period of twenty years i.e. from February 5, 2000 to February 4, 2020. Again, there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act. A specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company but the Authorities held the Insurance Company liable which could not have been done. The reasoning and conclusion arrived at by us in the matter of Prabhu Lal (SLP No. 7370 of 2004) would apply to the case of Nasir Ahmed. That appeal is, therefore, allowed.

In Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No. 17794 of 2004), the vehicle involved in accident was a Jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and in view of the fact that the driver was holding licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the vehicle in question. For the reasons recorded hereinabove in the main matter of Prabhu Lal i.e. SLP(C) No. 7370 of 2004, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable and that appeal also deserves to be allowed.

10)                     provisions of M.V. Rules.  

11)                      

12)       

1)PRESIDENT 

2)      MEMBER

3)      MEMBER 

29/10/2012

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.