PER JUSTICE MR. A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1)      This appeal is preferred by Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd., questioning the validity and legality of the impugned judgment and award whereby compensation in the sum of Rs.49,480/- was granted together with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from the date of repudiation i.e. 15/07/2014 alongwith compensation on account of physical and mental harassment in the sum of Rs.3000/- and cost of litigation in the sum of Rs.2000/-. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the motor driving license which the driver had possessed for non transport vehicle was valid until 22/09/2018 while for transport vehicle was valid until 24/03/2017. According to learned advocate, on the date of incident i.e. on 20/03/2014 the driver was not possessing the motor driving license for transport vehicle as the date of renewal indicated it was renewed on 25/03/2004. This argument regarding competency of driver on the date of accident to drive the motor vehicle which was in transport category is supported by the learned advocate for appellant by ruling in New India Assurance Company Ltd…..V/s…Prabhulal, reported in AIR 2008 S.C., page 614 to argue that imposition of liability on insurance company was  held improper on account of the fact that vehicle involved in the accident was driven by driver holding light motor vehicle license and in that case the appeal by the insurance company was allowed on the ground that insurance company can not be held liable. To meet this argument, learned advocate for the respondent cited Mukund Dewangan …..V/s……Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., which appears three judges bench ruling by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported as 2017(4) TAC 11 (SC),  in which case it was held that there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to driven transport vehicle when driver is holding license to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. This ruling is also subsequently referred to by Hon’ble National Commission in Santlal……..V/s……Rajesh and others, reported as 2018 A.C. 852 (SC), where fact show that the driver had at relevant time license to  drive motor cycle, scooter, car, light motor vehicle, though there was no separate endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. It was held that there was no breach of condition because the driver having license of LMV can drive the transport vehicle without any separate endorsement obtained by the driver. According to learned advocate for appellant, this legal position explained in the case of Mukund Dewangan is again referred to in the order in Civil Appeal No.841/2018 in the ruling of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.…..V/s……Rambha Devi and others. The ruling Mukund Dewangan is decided by larger bench of three judges. In our view, the legal position is concluded by ruling in the case Mukund Dewangan and it also appears that the said judgment is of the view expressed by three Hon’ble judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India will continue to hold the field unless the same is expressly overruled. Therefore, we can not accept the argument advanced that there was no valid motor driving license held by driver concerned on the date of incident as the motor driving license mentioned expiry till 22/09/2018 for non transport vehicle and 24/03/2017 for transport vehicle. Merely because there was some gap of between expiry of license and date of renewal could not mean that driver holding valid motor driving license for non transport vehicle would be incompetent to drive the transport unloaded vehicle  with unloaden weight  upto 2500 k.g. Therefore it can not be said that the driver was incompetent or was not able to drive motor transport vehicle with weight below 2500 k.g. as mentioned in the motor vehicle details of registered motor vehicle bearing  No.MH-40/N/6524, which was Ashok Leyland, below 2500 k.g., used as public carrier.   

2)      The next submission on behalf of the appellant is that there was a survey report regarding the assessment of damages to the extent of Rs.20,505.92 paisa only. However, the learned Forum below awarded total compensation infavour of the complainant which according to learned advocate for the appellant is wrong. To this submission learned advocate for respondent argued that the bill for repairs issued by Tajeshree Auto Space Pvt.Ltd. was sum of Rs.49,480/- which the complainant had to pay. Therefore the award was just logical and proper, as the bill amount had to be paid by the complainant.   

3)      We have seen the bill, document as also that expenses incurred by the complainant to the tune of Rs.49,480/- as per the bill. Therefore this submission that award is unjust and improper is also not acceptable. The rate of interest awarded is just and proper as also compensation and cost allowed in the impugned award. Therefore we dismiss the appeal with additional cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the appellant to the complainant. The amount if any deposited shall be paid to the complainant after expiry of a period of 90 days from the date of this order. Appeal dismissed with cost awarded accordingly.