IMPORTANT POINT
In case of total loss, claim should not be fully rejected even if there is some violation of policy conditions.

Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President —Heard learned counsel and with their assistance, we have also examined the record of the complaint file. Vehicle of the appellant on the date of its accident being insured with the respondent under a valid policy of insurance is not in dispute. After accident on receipt of intimation, respondent appointed a surveyor to assess the extent of loss caused to the vehicle. His report is Annexure R6. As per this report, net amount payable by the respondent was Rs.94,022.80 paise. But the claim was not settled. As such the appellant filed Consumer Complaint No. 109/2008.

2. This complaint was contested by the respondent on the ground, that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Further stand of the respondent was that it was informed that the vehicle was being driven by Rajinder Singh son of Shri Joginder Singh who was licensed to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) only. Whereas in the instant case vehicle involved was a transport vehicle. This fact was reinforced according to the respondent from the verification having been got done by it from the Registering & Licensing Authority (R&LA) Nahan.

3. District Forum below after hearing the parties has dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal.

4. Along with appeal, application for additional application being MA No.101/2010 has been filed for placing on record for being read in evidence the report of the

R&LA (MV) Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. When a reference is made to the facts detailed in this application, as well as to Annexure R4, (the copy of the licence placed on record by the respondent-Insurance Company), report of the R&LA (MV) Nahan , is in direct conflict with Annexure R4.

5. During the course of hearing of this application, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a Photostat copy of the licence to which this report pertains. Though at this stage Mr. Tomer seriously contended that neither the report of the

R&LA attached with this application, nor the Photostat copy shown can be looked into for any purpose whatsoever. We clarify here that we do not intend to allow this application for various reasons which will be recorded hereinafter.

6. Junior Assistant from the office of

R&LA had appeared as witness with record before the District Forum on 18.9.2009. With reference to the original record brought by him, he proved Annexure R4 copy of the driving licence, as also the endorsement having been made on it on 22.11.2006 whereby he was 1icensed to drive HTV. In case what was urged by Mr. Thakur today that the driver was authorized to drive LMV (Transport) was correct then nothing prevented the appellant to have cross-examined the witnesses with reference to said licence regarding which report is placed on record, as also the copy of licence that was shown today.

7. In this context it will also be appropriate to notice here, that the LMV (TPT) was valid upto 22.11.2012. As per provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a driving licence issued/renewed under the said Act is to be in case of a transport vehicle is for a period of 3 years. This means that the licence had been issued on 23.11.2009 which was valid upto 22.11.2012. Mr. Thakur on the basis of copy of licence shown to us could not contest this position. As such no fruitful purpose is going to be served even if this application is allowed on the admitted facts. In the light of these circumstances we find that this application needs to be rejected. Ordered accordingly.

8. Now comes the question as to how to proceed further in this appeal. Admittedly it is the case of the respondent-insurance company that there was a breach of warranty of the policy including limitation as to its use. In the face of this admitted stand of the respondent, we feel that the decision of this case need not detain us in the face of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of