Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member

          This appeal takes an exception to the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Nashik dated 07/01/2010 in consumer complaint No.114/2006.

          The facts in brief of the complaint can be summerised as under :-

          One Mr.Murlidhar Madhavrao Jadhal (deceased) had purchased Tempo bearing No.MH-15-AG-8521.  He has insured said tempo with the org. O.P./appellant herein for a period 15/05/2004 to 14/05/2005. Said tempo met with an accident on 10/03/2005 and the deceased had filed FIR to the Police Station accordingly.  He had filed claim along with relevant documents to the O.P./appellant.  O.P./appellant had appointed Surveyor and Surveyor had carried out the survey.  O.P./appellant had repudiated the claim on 05/04/2006 on the ground that at the time of accident, driver was not having valid licence to drive the vehicle.  Tempo suffered a loss of `4,74,070/-.  Hence, heirs of the deceased had filed a consumer complaint claiming from the O.P./appellant `4,74,070/- with interest @ 18% p.a., to pay `23,000/- for mental agony and `2,000/- as costs.

          O.P./appellant had filed their written version contending therein that there was insurance of the tempo for a period 15/05/2004 to 14/05/2005.  O.P./appellant further contended that on the day of accident, driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and it being violation of the terms and condition of the policy, O.P./appellant had repudiated the claim.

          Forum  below  after  hearing  both  the  parties   partially  allowed   the complaint  directing  org. O.P. to  pay  `2,03,656/- along  with  interest  @ 12% p.a. from 16/06/2005.  Further, Forum below directed to pay an amount of `15,000/- for mental agony and `1,000/- as costs.  Being aggrieved by this order, org. O.P. has filed this appeal.

          On behalf of appellant Advocate Mr.Sanjay Mhatre and on behalf of respondent Advocate Mrs.Anita Marathe argued the case.

          On behalf of appellant, Learned Counsel has contended that at the time of accident of insured vehicle, driver was having a valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).  He further contended that respondent/org. complainant is not a consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he was using vehicle for commercial purpose.  As against this, Counsel for the respondent Mrs.Anita Marathe had contended that in the RC Book of the insured vehicle, weight of vehicle is mentioned as 3150 Kg. and as per Motor Vehicle Act, Section 2(21), weight of the light motor vehicle is 7500 Kg. and from this fact, it will be clear that driver of the insured vehicle was having a valid licence to drive the vehicle.

          Admittedly, the vehicle was insured for a period of 15/05/2004 to 14/05/2005.  It is not disputed that there was an accident to the vehicle on 10/03/2005.  So, it is clear that at the time of accident, vehicle was having insurance cover.  Deceased Murlidhar Jadhal had registered a FIR in the Police Station.  Deceased Murlidhar Jadhal had filed a claim within prescribed time limit.  Appellant had appointed a Surveyor and he has carried  out survey stating therein that damage of the vehicle was `2,03,656/-.  Appellant had repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident.  Appellant had pointed out that the driver claimed licence from District Transport Officer, Shivan, Bihar State.  However, that is not the licence issued by the District Transport Officer, Shivan.  The org. complainant had filed a driving licence from Transport Authority of Maharashtra State, which is not challenged by the O.P./appellant.  Further, Learned Counsel for the appellant had contended that the driving licence was not for Light Motor Vehicle.  As per the Motor Vehicle Act, Section 2(21) Light Motor Vehicle is a vehicle having weight upto 7500 Kg.  Vehicle which has met with an accident is having weight of 3150 Kg. and hence, objection of the appellant that it is not a Light Motor Vehicle cannot be sustained. 

          As regards contention of the appellant that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ because he was using the vehicle for commercial purpose, they have not adduced any evidence that complainant/respondent was using the vehicle for commercial purpose.  Forum below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, have passed the order and we do not find any reason to interfere in the same.  Appeal filed is without any substance and does not require any interference in the order passed by the Forum below.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands dismissed.  The order of the Forum below is hereby      confirmed.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.