Interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provisions regarding driving licences and the entitlement to drive specific classes of vehicles.

ORDER

S.K. Naik, Member - This revision petition has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 21st of March, 2006 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (State Commission for short). They are aggrieved that, the State Commission has reversed the order dated 22nd of September, 2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya (District Forum for short), by which the District Forum while accepting the ground of repudiation of the petitioner-Insurance Company had dismissed the complaint of the respondent herein.

2. The dispute between the parties had arisen under the following circumstances:

The respondent-complainant is the owner of Eicher Cantor, 2001 model, medium goods vehicle, which was duly insured for the period 26th of April, 2001 to 25th of April, 2002. The vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 23rd of February, 2002, resulting in extensive damage to the vehicle. The police authorities as well as the petitioner-Insurance Company were informed about the accident. The petitioner-Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor, who assessed the damage at Rs. 1,24,365.20 ps. Allegedly, the respondent-complainant spent a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 for the repair of the vehicle and filed a claim petition for its reimbursement. The petitioner-Insurance Company, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not authorized to drive a vehicle of the class to which the insured vehicle belonged.

3. Aggrieved thereupon, the respondent-complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner-Insurance Company. On consideration of the evidence produced by either side, the District Forum on a thorough analysis of the provisions of law on the subject arrived at the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident did not hold a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle which was a medium goods vehicle , as the driving licence held by the driver was only for light motor vehicle (non-transport) and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.

4. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the respondent-complainant challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission in an appeal. The State Commission did not agree with the view taken by the District Forum and reversed the order and vide the order impugned directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 to the respondent-complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization, subject to the surrender of the salvage by the respondent-complainant.

5. Unhappy with this order of the State Commission that the opposite party-petitioner-Insurance Company has instituted this revision petition.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the case very carefully.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company, referring to the Registration Certificate of the vehicle (page 41 of the paper-book), has contended that as per the certificate the unladen weight of the vehicle though was 3200 kgs. the gross vehicle weight is 8770 kgs. It is also clearly stated therein that the vehicle belonged to medium goods vehicle class. He has referred to the driving licence, which is at page 56 of the paper-book, and has pointed out that the driver was in possession of a driving licence which authorized him to drive LMV (NT) [light motor vehicle (Non-Transport)].

8. Learned Counsel thereafter has elaborated on the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in particular, Section 2(21), which reads as under:

"light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms."

(Emphasis added)

and has contended that a