National Insurance Co. Ltd., which was opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition against the order dated 15.1.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand in Appeal No.296/2006. The State Commission, by the impugned order has upheld the order passed by the District Forum. Shortly stated, facts of the case are that complainant/respondent Mukund Lal Senapati, transporter had taken Commercial Vehicles Policy of insurance covering TDV 407 Mini Bus bearing No.BIT-571, Model 1988 with seating capacity of 22 for the period25.1.1990 to 24.1.1991 for a sum of Rs.2,19,000/-. Said vehicle met with an accident on 21.4.1990 at Beliguma, Near Tatanagar, P.S. Mango Mufassil, East Singhbhum, while the same was being driven by the driver Badal Kumar (Chandra). FIR was lodged in P.S. Mango Mufassil. Respondent lodged a claim with the petitioner seeking reimbursement of the damage caused to the said vehicle in the accident. Petitioner, on being informed, appointed Shri Surya Dutt, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to conduct the survey and assess the loss. The said surveyor, by his report dated 22.6.1990, assessed the loss at Rs.88,025/-. On verification of the licence, it was revealed that the driver Badal Chandra was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle or any public service vehicle. The claim filed by the respondent was repudiated on 7.9.1994 on the ground that the driver driving the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. Aggrieved by the letter of repudiation, respondent filed the complaint dated 16.9.1996, which was registered with the District Forum on 27.2.1997. On being served, petitioner filed written statement taking a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by limitation. On merits, it was pleaded that the driver had a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and Medium Motor Vehicle (MMV) only. There was no endorsement on the licence authorizing the driver to drive a passenger/transport vehicle. District Forum overruled the objection regarding limitation. It was held that the respondent had filed the complaint on 16.9.1996 which was not registered as the Presiding Officer of the District Forum had not been appointed. That the complaint was registered on 27.2.1997, as by that time the Presiding Officer of the District Forum had been appointed. The delay, if any, was condoned. On merits, it was held that since the driver possessed a professional driving licence, he could drive the transport vehicle as well. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, by the impugned order, has endorsed the findings recorded by the District Forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint filed by the respondent was beyond the period of limitation. Since both the fora below have concurrently found that the complaint had been filed on 16.9.1996 but was registered on 27.2.1997 because of the non-appointment of the Presiding Officer of the District Forum, we take the finding recorded by the fora below to be correct. Counsel for the petitioner next contends that since the driving licence possessed by the driver authorized him to drive LMV and MMV only, he was not authorized to drive the passenger/transport vehicle. Respondent’s vehicle was a minibus to carry passengers, which would be a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That since the driver did not possess the driving licence to drive the passenger/transport vehicle, the petitioner is not liable to indemnify the respondent for the loss suffered in the accident. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal – 1(2008) CPJ 1 (SC). We find substance in this submission. In the aforesaid judgement, the Supreme Court of India has held that insurance company is not liable to reimburse for the loss caused in case the driver did not possess an effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. In the aforesaid case, the driver had the licence to drive the LMV only, whereas he was driving a commercial vehicle to carry passengers. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai – (2006) 6 SCC 250 wherein it has been held that if the vehicle is a taxi and the driver of the said vehicle holds a driving licence to drive LMV only without there being any endorsement for driving a transport vehicle, then the insurance company cannot be ordered to pay the compensation. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Lal’s case (supra) are as under : “35. The learned counsel for the insurance company also referred to a decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Kusum Rai & Ors., II(2006)CPJ 8 (SC) = III(2006) SLT 162 = (2006)4 SCC 250, wherein this court held that if the vehicle is a taxi which is being driven by a driver holding licence for driving Light Motor Vehicle only without there being any endorsement for driving transport vehicle, the insurance company cannot be ordered to pay compensation. 44. 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. 45. In Chandra Parkash Saxena (SLP No.17794 of2004), the vehicle involved in accident was Jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and in view of the fact that the driver was holding licence to driver light Motor vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the Vehicle in question. For the reasons recorded hereinabove in the main matters 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.” From the record, we find that the driver in the present case had the licence to drive LMV and MMV only and there was no endorsement authorizing him to drive the minibus, which was a transport vehicle to carry passengers. Since the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse for the loss caused to the vehicle in the accident. For the reasons stated above, we allow the Revision Petition, set aside the order of the fora below and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Deposit, if any, made by the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner. | 
