CC Filed on 17.10.2007<br /> Disposed on 20.05.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated 20.05.2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.193/2007<br /> <br /> Sri. M.Sathish,<br /> S/o Munireddy,<br /> Aged about 35 years,<br /> R/o No.21/1, Lakkur village,<br /> Lakkur Hobli,<br /> Malur Taluk,<br /> Kolar District. Complainant <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. T.V.Ramesh & Others)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Divisional Manager,<br /> The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> Divisional Office-X,<br /> Nagaprabha Chambers,<br /> 2nd Floor, No.213-217,<br /> 3rd Main Road, 4th Cross,<br /> Chamarajpet,<br /> Bangalore – 560 018. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.C.Subbaraja Setty) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.29,600/- with interest at 18% per annum and costs etc.,<br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.193/2007<br /> 2. The material facts of the case of complainant may be stated as follows: That the complainant is the RC owner of the goods tempo bearing registration No.KA-08 - 2687. He was using the said vehicle for transportation of goods. This vehicle was insured with opposite party vide comprehensive policy No.423000/31/2008/2563 valid from 14.06.2007 to 13.06.2008 covering risk of Rs.4,50,000/- by paying premium of Rs.13,517/-. It is alleged that on 26.06.2007 this goods tempo while transporting the goods met with accident at about 4-30 pm on Malur-Lakkur Road and the vehicle was extensively damaged. It was repaired at authorized service center in Bangalore, spending Rs.29,600/-. Further it is alleged that the opposite party by letter dated 11.09.2007 repudiated the claim on improper and illegal ground. Therefore the complainant filed the present complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party appeared and contested the case. It contended that the vehicle in question was goods carrying Transport Vehicle and the driver had no valid and effective Driving License to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident, thereby the repudiation of claim was valid and proper. The surveyor of the opposite party assessed the loss to vehicle at Rs.24,358/-.The opposite party has not disputed other facts. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits and documents in support of their contentions. We heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service by opposite party?<br /> 2) If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which relief the <br /> Complainant is entitled to?<br /> 3) What order?<br /> CC No.193/2007<br /> 6. After considering the rival submissions and the records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: At the time of accident one Ramesh S/o Nagappa aged about 30 years was driving the goods tempo, and he was having driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle valid from 11.09.2006 to 10.09.2026 with authorization to drive maxi cab valid from 26.12.2006 to 25.12.2009. The date of birth of this driver as disclosed in the driving license is 16.09.1977. <br /> <br /> The learned counsel for complainant contended that the driver had a valid driving license to drive the light motor vehicle up to laden weight of 7500 kgs and at the time of accident the laden weight of the vehicle was less than 4500 kgs, thereby the driver had valid and effective driving license. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the vehicle in question is a transport vehicle, therefore the driver cannot drive the said vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles him to drive it. He submits that there should have been specific endorsement authorizing the driver to drive the goods vehicle in question. <br /> <br /> The learned counsel for complainant relied upon 2008(1) T.A.C. 812 (S.C) between National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others. In this decision it is held that the driver who had a valid license to drive a light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle. The learned counsel for the opposite party pointed out that this decision was relating to a third party claim before M.A.C.T., before the amendment carried out in Rule 14 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules by GSR 221(E) with effect from 28.03.2001. Therefore he submitted that this decision does not help the case of complainant. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. <br /> CC No.193/2007<br /> Ltd., V/s Prabhulal reported in 1(2008) CPJ 33(SC) and another decision cited in I(2008) CPJ 33 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pruthviraj. <br /> <br /> After considering the above decisions we are persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for OP. In the present case the endorsement in the driving license issued to Ramesh is only in respect of driving maxi cab, but not in respect of goods carriage vehicle. Though the light motor vehicle covers both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle, a specific endorsement is required to drive light passenger carriage as well as light goods carriage vehicle, if the driver wants to drive both type of vehicles. If endorsement is only in respect of one type of vehicle he is not authorized to drive the other type of vehicle, though it falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore we hold that the driver Ramesh was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative Point No.2 does not arise for consideration. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 20th day of May 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />