IMPORTANT POINT
Repudiation of claim by insurance company was held justified where driver was holding a driving licence for LMV while vehicle which he was driving was admittedly a transport vehicle.

S.N. Aggarwal, President— Dalvinder Singh respondent was the owner of Tempo Treveller bearing RC No.PB-01-3790 which he had purchased on 31.7.2002. It was insured with the appellants for an amount of Rs. 5,65,000 for the period from 31.7.2002 to 30.7.2003. On 24.10.2002 this vehicle met with an accident with truck No. NL-02-A-9597 when it was being driven by Kulwant Singh who died in this accident. Accordingly a case at FIR No. 264 dated 24.10.2002 for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/427/304-A of the IPC was registered against the truck driver in PS-Jagraon. It was further pleaded that the insurance claim was lodged with the appellants but the appellants failed to settle down the claim. Hence the respondent filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short “District Forum”).

2. The appellants filed written reply. It was not denied that Dalvinder Singh respondent was the owner of Tempo Treveller bearing RC No. PB-01-3790 and that it was insured with the appellants for an amount of Rs. 5,65,000 for the period from 31.7.2002 to 30.7.2003. It was also not disputed that this vehicle met with an accident on 24.10.2002. It was being driven by Kulwant Singh driver and the case was registered in PS-Jagraon. However it was pleaded that on the receipt of the information from the respondent the appellants had appointed

M/s Arun Kumar and Company as surveyors who assessed the loss for an amount of Rs. 2,99,500. It was also pleaded that Kulwant Singh driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore the respondent was not entitled to the insurance claim. Hence it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3. Dalvinder Singh respondent filed his affidavit Ex. C1. He also proved documents Ex. C2. to Ex. C10. On the other hand, the appellants produced the affidavit of A.K. Dhar, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex. R1, affidavit of Arun Kumar surveyor Ex. R2 and affidavit of B.S. Sharma Ex. R3. The appellants also proved documents Ex. R4 to Ex. R8.

4. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 8.11.2004 and directed the appellants to make the payment of Rs. 5,50,000 to the respondent.

5. Hence the appeal.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Kulwant Singh driver was holding a driving licence for L.M.V. while he was driving a transport vehicle without any endorsement as required under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal1”. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 8.11.2004 be set aside.

7. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that tempo treveller was a ‘light transport vehicle’ and a person holding driving licence for L.M.V. was entitled to drive ‘light transport vehicle’. Therefore there was no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 8.11.2004. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as “Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company2”. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be dismissed with heavy costs.

8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.

9. The registration certificate of this vehicle has been proved as Ex. C2. This clearly reveals that the vehicle had the sitting capacity of 12+1. Therefore it falls within the definition of ‘maxicab’ which has been defined under Section 2 (22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:-

“maxicab” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward.”

10. Maxicab is a ‘public service vehicle’ as defined in Section 2(35) of the said Act. It reads as under:-

“Public service vehic