By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member :

The gist of the case is as follows.

The Complainant is the registered owner of KL -12 D-1170 Bajaj auto 3 wheel goods vehicle. The Complainant has insured the vehicle with the Opposite Party. The Complainant is having valid driving license for driving transport, non transport, LMV heavy goods motor vehicle and also auto rickshaw by virtue of driving license No. 13/2039/1976. On 27.05.2008 the vehicle met with an accident and had sustained damages. The accident was informed to the Opposite party and vehicle was taken to KVR Motors, Kalpetta for repairs. For the repairs the bill for Rs. 15,031.86/- was issued to the Complainant.

2. The Complainant put forward claim for the amount with the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party denied the claim stating that the Complainant is not authorized to drive three wheeled goods vehicle. Therefore the Complainant send a letter to the license authority, Wayanad requesting clarification for the driving license. The license authority, Wayanad after verification of the license of the Complainant has issued a letter wherein it is stated that according to Rule 2 W of the KMV Rules 1989, Three Wheeler means motor vehicles having three wheels constructed, adopted or used either to carry not more than four persons excluding the driver or for the transportation of goods whether for hire or not. So it is clear that the Complainant's license is valid for driving three wheeled goods vehicle. Though these facts were explained to the Opposite Party along with the clarification issued by the licensing authority, the Opposite Party refused to settle the claim. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay the claim amount of Rs. 15,031.86/- with 8% interest and a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and other costs.

3. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version. They admitted the policy and content that they have processed the claim and found that the claimant have no valid driving license for driving this particular vehicle at the time of accident. On verification of driving license No. 13/2039/1976 of the Complainant, he is authorized to drive auto rickshaw with badge No. 13/194/1978. He is not entitled to drive three wheeled goods vehicle. The clarification issued by the licensing authority does not state that the complainant is entitled to drive a three wheeled goods vehicle with the existing license, which entitles him to drive an auto rickshaw. The amount of Rs. 15,031.86/- as repair charge by the Complainant is excessive. The claim was assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 11,200/- as cost of repair and spare parts. On the basis of survey report, the Opposite Party has worked out the amount as Rs. 12,250/- including tax. The Complainant is not entitled to get more amount than what is assessed by the surveyor. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

4. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 on the side of the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit. No documents was marked on the side of the Opposite Party.

5. The matters to be considered are :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party ?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief.

6. Point No. 1 The Opposite Party's contention is that the Complainant has no valid driving license for driving a three wheeled good vehicle. The Opposite Party admit that the Complainant has a valid license to drive an auto rickshaw. No evidence is brought before the forum to show that a separate license is necessary for driving three wheeled goods vehicle. On the other hand Ext.A4 clearly state that “three wheeler” means motor vehicle having three wheels constructed, adopted or used either to carry not more than 4 persons excluding the driver otherwise than for hire or reward or for the transportation of goods whether for hire or not. This provision is as per rule 2 W of KMV rules 1989. Ext.A4 states that as per rule 6 of KMV Rules 1989, one year experience is required for authorization to drive three wheeled goods carriage. PW2 also clearly state that as per Ext.A1, the complainant is having license to drive an auto rickshaw and no separate endorsement is necessary for driving a 3 wheeled goods vehicle. He says that as per Ext.A1 the Complainant has got badge on 1978 and he has right to drive goods vehicle from 27.05.2008 onwards. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is not allowing the claim as the Complainant is entitled for it. Hence the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party 1.

7. Point No. 2 The Surveyor has assessed the claim at Rs.11,200/- and on the basis that report, the Opposite Party has worked out the amount of Rs. 12,250/- including the tax. The Complainant is entitled to get this amount.

Therefore, the Opposite Party is directed to give Rs.12,250/- (Rupees Twelve thousand two hundred and fifty only) to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay a compensation at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand

only) to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an interest on the amount of Rs. 13,250/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand two hundred and fifty only) at the rate of 10% from the date of filing the complaint to the payment.

Pronounced in open forum on this the 31^st day of July 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Domenic Joseph Complainant

PW2. C.V.M. Shereef MVI R.T.O Office Wayanad.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant :

A1. Copy of License

A2. Registration Certificate (Photo copy)

A3.Series Cash memo dt. 16.07.2008

A4. Letter from Licensing Authority dt. 4.11.2008

A5. Letter dt. 7.11.2008

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. Claim form