Heard learned counsel for appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The pleadings as available from both the parties is that the complainant being the owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. OD16 - 1844 has purchased the insurance policy for the vehicle covering the period from 20.12.2014 to 19.12.2015 from the OPs and during currency of the insurance policy on 19.5.2015 at about 3 PM the vehicle was burnt and damaged on the way. Thereafter, the claim was made but it was repudiated because the driver has no valid driving licence. Challenging the same, the complaint was filed.
4. OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version stating therein that they have deputed the surveyor who repudiated theclaim on the ground that the driver has no valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Therefore, they have repudiated the claim rightly. So, there was no deficiency in service on their part.
5. Learned District Forum after hearingboth the parties passed the following order:-
“xxxxxxxxx
For the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances we hold that the complaintpetition merits consideration and accordingly it is allowed on contest against the OPs 1 & 2. We allowed the complain petition with contest by directing the OPs to pay the insurance claim amount as per production of bill and voucher incurring expenditure in repairing of damaged insured vehicle with interest @ 6% from the date of filing case to the complainant subject to deduction of depreciation value on considering the age of damaged vehicle. The OPs No. 1 & 2 are further directed to repayment of the aforesaid decreed amount directly to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of this order failing which the same amount will carry interest 09% per annum as penal interest till payment.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the OPs. He also submitted that the learned District Forum has passed the impugned order illegally because the driver has got LMV license but without any endorsement whether “Transport” or “Non-transport”. Learned District Forum ought to have considered that policy condition should be complied for ensuring the compensation. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.
8. When during currency of the policy the vehicle was damaged by fire due to short circuit, noquestion of driver having valid driving licence the vehicle does arise. However, the driver has driving licence of LMV. In MukundDewanganvrs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 disposed of on 3.7.2017where Their Lordships have held that in the case of driving licence LMV or HMV without the endorsement regarding the ‘transport’ or ‘non-transport’the driver can drive the LMV or HMV. In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that driving licenceof the driver driving the alleged vehicle cannot be said as illegal.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit on the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and as such the impugnedorder is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
