Appeared at the time of arguments For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Harsh K. Gautam, Advocate Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate Pronounced on: 21st April 2023 ORDER 1. This Revision Petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Shiv Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”) against the Impugned Order dated 13.12.2012 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 316 of 2012, wherein the Appeal filed by the Appellant (Respondent herein) was allowed and the Order dated 05.08.2012 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for short ‘District Forum’) in CC No. 111/2011 was set aside. 2. The Complainant was an owner of a Tata Safari vehicle, and he got insured the same with the Opposite Party for the period starting from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008. The vehicle was involved in an accident on 27.11.2008, and a claim was lodged with the Opposite Party. The Surveyor, deputed by the Opposite Party, gave his opinion that the vehicle was a total loss, and advised the complainant to sell the vehicle, which could fetch about Rs.1,90,000/. However, when the Complainant went to the Opposite Party for payment of the balance insured amount, the claim remained unsettled. The Opposite Party eventually repudiated the claim on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle held a license to drive only an LMV vehicle, not an LTV, and that the Complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of the accident as he had already sold it to the driver. 3. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before District Forum, U.T. Chandigarh for the compensation of Rs. 5,06,350/- with interest @ 18% p.a. He further prayed Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and physical harassment alongwith cost of litigation of Rs. 11,000/-. 4. The Insurance Co., in its reply, submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed driver at the time of the accident, therefore, the Complainant had no insurable interest as the vehicle was sold already to the driver. There was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 5. The District Forum allowed the Complaint with the following observation: “9. The registration certificate and also the insurance policy is in the name of Shiv Kumar, who is the Complainant in the instant case. The plea that the vehicle is a transport vehicle is also doubtful as the tax paid is one time; whereas the tax for transport vehicles is paid annually. One time tax can be paid only for private vehicles. Hence, looking at the entirety of the situation, and the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court stated above, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party should have honoured its commitment and made payment of the claim as per the insurance policy to the Complainant. The complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Party is directed to make payment as per the IDV of the vehicle, after allowing depreciation for 11months, as per norms to the Complainant. The amount of Rs.1,90,000/- already received by the Complainant from sale of salvage be deducted from the amount payable. The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of litigation. 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the OP filed the First Appeal No. 316/2012 before the State Commission, which allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order of the District Forum. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record including the insurance policy. 9. The crux of the matter is whether the vehicle in question was a light transport vehicle (LTV) or light motor vehicle (LMV) and secondly, whether the driver holds valid driving licence. 10. On careful perusal, it is evident from the copy of the Driving Licence, (Annexure A) that Pardeep Bansal was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, holding a valid Driving Licence for LMV-MCW, which was valid till 05.02.2021. It was a private car and the insurance policy was issued in favour of the Complainant. 11. As per the classification of vehicle as under Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act, the LMV category of vehicle falls wherein the weight should be less than 7500 kg. The weight of instant vehicle in question was 2650 kg. Even the Registration Certificate issued by the RTO mentioned the instant vehicle as LMV. Moreover, the driver was holding valid licence for LMV. It is pertinent to note that the sale certificate and the registration certificate of the vehicle show that the deceased driver was authorized to drive LMVs. In my view, if it was a light transport vehicle, then the permit was mandatory requirement, but it is not evident in the instant case. 12. Based on the discussion above, in my view, the OP – Insurance Co. wrongly repudiated the claim. The Order of the State Commission is set aside and the instant Revision Petition is allowed. | 
