During the currency of the vehicle insurance policy covering risk for Rs.6,16,000/-, petitioner’s vehicle met with an accident near petrol pump at Gopeshwar and fell in a ditch on 19.8.2005.  The surveyor visited the spot.  Respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle in hill roads.  Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

        District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent insurance company to pay within one month Rs.5,21,000/- towards the claim amount to the petitioner for the insured truck within interest @ 5% from the date of filing the claim till payment.  Rs.2,000/- were awarded by way of interest.

        Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint by observing thus :

“In the present case, there may not be any nexus between the driving license of the driver and the accident, but one cannot ignore the fact that if the driver, who was not authorized to drive the vehicle in hill roads, would not have taken the vehicle on the accident site, which was in hills, the accident would not have occurred.  Thus, the complainant-insured cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fault.

For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the definite view that since there was no hill endorsement in the driving license of the driver authorizing him to drive the vehicle in hill roads, the insurance company was perfectly justified in repudiating the claim and the contract view taken by the District Forum suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be maintained.  As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order impugned of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.”

        On the last date of hearing, we had directed the counsel for the petitioner to find out as to whether Rule 193 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998 was applicable to the successive State of Uttrakhand after its formation.  Counsel for the petitioner fairly pointed out that Rule 193 was applicable to the State of Uttrakhand, as the State of Uttrakhand has neither repealed nor modified the Rule 193 being the successive State, therefore, it was applicable.

        Counsel for the petitioner states that Rule 193 was not mandatory in nature.  We do not find any substance in this submission.  Driving in hills is different from driving in the plains.  State legislature, in its wisdom, had enacted a Rule that for driving in hill areas, a person was required to have Hill Road Endorsement.  Since the driver of the petitioner admittedly did not have the Hill Road Endorsement on his licence, he was not authorized to drive in the hills.  Since the vehicle was being driven by a person who did not possess the licence to drive in the hill areas, insurance company is not liable to reimburse for the loss suffered by the petitioner.  Dismissed.