IMPORTANT POINT
A person holding driving licence to ply transport vehicle unless there is Light Motor Vehicle cannot ply specific endorsement to that effect.

R.K. Batta, Presiding Member—Complainant/respondent is owner of Eicher (Medium Goods Vehicle) with Registration No.KA03-A-4899 and it was comprehensively insured with the petitioner/opposite party for the period from 10.2.2000 to 9.2.2001. The said vehicle met with an accident on 17.4.2000. The surveyor was appointed. The vehicle was repaired by Canter Automobile Services Pvt. Ltd. and Complainant submitted bill for Rs.1,93,394.95. The petitioner/opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing driver Ravi to drive the vehicle who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive Medium Goods Vehicle same on the date of accident. The complainant had produced endorsement dated 18.9.2000 given by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore to the effect that driver Ravi was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle and the driving licence was valid from 24.3.2000 to 23.3.2003. The Insurance Company took the plea that the vehicle was insured as medium goods vehicle and as such the driver who had licence for Light Motor Vehicle was not authorised to drive the Medium Goods Vehicle and there being breach of policy condition, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay.

2. The District Forum held that the violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act was merely a technical deficiency and that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the entire claim. The complaint was, accordingly, allowed by directing the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,93,394.95 with 10% p.a. interest from 23.11.2000 till payment with cost of Rs. 5,000.

3. The order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission. The State Commission held that from the certificate issued by RTO, it was found that the unladen weight of the vehicle is 3,160 kg. and as such the said vehicle is to be treated as Light Motor Vehicle and since the driver had licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle, the Insurance Company was liable to pay. The appeal was dismissed.

4. The petitioner has, thus, come in revision against the said orders. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent has sent written arguments.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the State Commission erred in taking into account the unladen weight of the vehicle, whereas the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle is required to be taken into account which as per Registration Certificate is 8,770 kg. He also pointed out that in terms of Section 2(21) of M.V. Act, 1988 “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omni bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7,500 kg. Therefore, according to him, both the Fora below have erred in granting compensation in breach of the policy condition, as also breach of law, inasmuch as the driver did not possess driving licence for Medium Goods Vehicle which was insured with the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the respondent in written arguments has submitted that revision against concurrent orders of two Fora below is required to be dismissed. He has further submitted that the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence as per Annexure ‘C’ and he was entitled to drive light motor vehicle upto the laden weight of 7,500 kg. which was valid upto 23.3.2003. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain rulings which are not applicable in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court which we shall refer at a little later stage. On question of limitation in filing appeal, it has been stated that no sufficient grounds have been given to condone delay.

7. We have gone through the record. The delay in filing the revision is stated to be 42 days. The impugned order was passed by the State Commission Karnataka at Bangalore and certified copy was sent to New Delhi where it is stated to have got mixed up with other files and after the same was located, the matter was sent to Bangalore office and after seeking clarif