IMPORTANT POINT
Breach of S. 3 of MV Act on account of which, petitioner not liable to pay compensation to respondent.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed this revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against impugned order dated 22.8.2011, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, ‘State Commission’) vide which (First Appeal No.4478 of 2010) filed by petitioner was partly allowed.

2. Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore -20 (for short, ‘District Forum’) on the ground that he is owner of Motor Vehicle No.KA-40-2824 (Light goods vehicle) which was insured with the petitioner. The said vehicle is a goods vehicle which fell under the category of ‘LMV’ since its un-laden weight is 3,100 kgs. The vehicle met with an accident on 17.06.2008 and sustained damages. The vehicle was driven by the driver who had valid licence. The petitioner was intimated by the respondent and petitioner deputed surveyor to assess the damage. Since, respondent was in urgent need of repairs and got the vehicle repaired with total cost of R.2,78,827/-, towing charges of Rs.8,100/-, inter cooler of Rs.13,130/- and miscellaneous charges of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner assured the respondent that they will pay him and he can get the vehicle repaired. Accordingly respondent got the vehicle repaired. On 27.05.2009, petitioner repudiated the claim stating that the vehicle is a ‘MGV’ and driver had licence only for ‘LGV’.

3. Petitioner in its written statement has stated that vehicle in question is a goods carrying commercial vehicle. The laden weight is 8,800 Kgs. It is not a light goods vehicle. The offending driver had possessed the valid licence with respect to LMV only and not to drive MGV. Hence, claim was rightly repudiated. It is denied that total loss sustained by respondent was Rs.2,78,827/-. The surveyor has assessed the net loss of Rs.1,59,862/-. Hence, complaint has to be dismissed.

4. District Forum vide order dated 24.9.2010, allowed the complaint in part and passed following directions;

“The Opposite Party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.2,14,345/- within 15 days from the date of this order with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Failing which, it shall pay the said sum together with interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.2,14,345/- from 27.05.2009 until payment within 30 days from today.”

5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which partly allowed it.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, that respondent’ s driver was only authorized to drive a Light Transport Vehicle, and Gross Vehicle Weight (for short as ‘GVW’) of which, should not have exceeded 7,500 Kilograms. However, the driver was driving a fully laden Medium Goods Carrying Transport Vehicle, the ‘GVW’ of which was 8,800 Kgs., that is, much more than 7,500 Kgs. Thus, there is a fundamental breach of the insurance policy.

8. In support, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Commission ‘The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nirmla Devi and others, (Revision Petition No.3876 of 2008) decided on 5th August, 2015.

9. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, that driver was having a valid driving licence for driving an ‘LMV’. More so, the unladen weight of the vehicle is 3,100 kgs. which is below 7,500 kgs. Thus, the vehicle in question fell in the category of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. Therefore, the claim of respondent has been wrongly repudiated. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of facts in favour of the respondent. Under these circumstances, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. As per documents placed on record, vehicle in question is M.G.V. (Medium Goods Vehicle) and laden weight of it is 8,800 kgs. Admittedly, driver who was driving this vehicle at the