1.     This is an appeal filed by the OP, received on transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, against order dated 8.5.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagadhri (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.357 of 11.8.2000.

2.        Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Maruti Omni Van of the complainant bearing No. HR-2E/6504 was insured with National Insurance Company Limited (OPs) vide policy No. 420402/98/6146790 and certificate No.46790 dated 30.6.1998 to 29.6.1999. The driver of the complainant namely Sh.Pawan Kumar was having a valid driving licence issued from the Licensing Authority, Jagadhri which was valid for light vehicles (Car-Jeep etc.). On 7.6.1999, the car met with an accident and the van was badly damaged. The claim was lodged with the respondents and the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- for the repair of the vehicle. All the documents were furnished by the complainant but the complainant vide letter dated 8.11.1999 repudiated the claim on false grounds. The complainant contacted the OPs but no response was given from their side. On the above said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint was filed. 

3.        Reply was filed by the OPs in which it was pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable because the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence which violates the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim was repudiated by the OPs after proper enquiry. The driving licence of the driver supplied by the complainant to the OPs was only to drive motor-cycle, motor car etc. but at the time of accident, the driver was driving an eight seater Maruti Van. The surveyor was appointed and a loss of Rs.4483/- was assessed.  It was further pleaded that the complaint was false, frivolous and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.  

5.     The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to make the payment of Rs.41,139/- as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date after three months from lodging the claim with the OPs till the date of realization of payment within one month from the date of this order. The order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of this order, otherwise action under Section 27 of the Act be initiated against the OPs.  

6.        Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP. Sh.Navin Kapur, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant and nobody appeared on behalf of respondent. Respondent was already proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2008.

7.     In the appeal, the learned District Forum failed to notice that the insured vehicle was registered as a Maruti Omni having a seating capacity of eight persons and this vehicle in question falls within the definition of “Omnibus” as per Section 2(29) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which defines as “Omnibus” to mean any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver. A Light Motor Vehicle includes motor car as well as omnibus while Motor Car as defined in Section 2(26) of the said Act specifically excludes an omnibus. The driving licence of the driver was verified from Licencing Authority and the said licence was reported to be valid for Motorcycle, Motorcar and Tractor only and there was no specific endorsement for Light Motor Vehicle on the said licence. Since Omnibus is included in the definition of Light Motor Vehicle but specifically excluded from definition of Motor Car, as such the driving licence for motor car cannot be held to be valid and effective for driving the vehicle in question. The person possessing a driving licence for motor car is not authorized to drive an eight seater maruti van which is specifically excluded from definition of motor car. The driving licence of driver to ply the above said vehicle was not effective, which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured and the claim was rightly repudiated by the appellant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant in any manner. It is further submitted that the learned District Forum has wrongly observed that the loss assessed by the surveyor is to the tune of Rs.41,193/- but in fact the total amount for assessment which was assessed by the surveyor is to the tune of Rs.4483/- and the finding of the District Forum is being without any legal basis or material and is unsustainable. The interest @ 12% p.a. awarded by the District Forum on the amount of loss as assessed by surveyor is not legally justified. Hence, it is prayed by the appellant that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the order passed by the District Forum may kindly be set aside.

8.     After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that the District Forum has rightly observed that the licence of the driver of the said vehicle was valid and effective at the time of accident. So, in this regard no interference is required for.

9.     The learned District Forum has erred in awarding the compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,139/- as per the surveyor report. A perusal of the report shows that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4483/-. Hence, the observation of the learned District Forum is wrong regarding the quantum of the amount for the loss assessed by the surveyor. Therefore, we reduce the amount of the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum from Rs.41,139/- to Rs.4483/- which is as per the report of the surveyor. With these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ops to pay Rs.4483/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. We dispose of the appeal with the above said modifications.

10.        Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.