The central legal point established is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding vehicle classification and driver's license validity, and the assessment of insurance claim validity based on policy conditions and contributing factors to the accident.

ORDER

Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member - Brief facts of this case which are relevant for its disposal are that the respondent being the owner of the vehicle bearing No. HP-66-1195 was insured by him with the OP/petitioner insurance company under comprehensive insurance policy commencing from 8.5.2008 to 7.5.2009. It was admitted between the parties that the vehicle was insured on Insureds Declared Value (I.D.V.) basis in the sum of Rs. 2,80,000/-. It is not under dispute that the vehicle met with an accident on 27.6.2008. The petitioner-OP on receipt of intimation regarding the accident deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. According to the surveyor, against the estimated sum of Rs. 2,38,612/- claimed by the respondent/complainant, a sum of Rs. 68,767.45p was payable subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The claim of the respondent/complainant was, however, repudiated on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and that there were unauthorized gratuitous passengers travelling in the vehicle which was only meant and adapted for the carriage of goods. As per the averments, against the sitting capacity 1+2, there were in all 5 persons including two minors there in the vehicle at the time of accident. In view of the repudiation of the claim by the petitioner/OP, a complaint came to be filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum which was resisted by the OP insurance company on the same grounds on which the claim had earlier been repudiated by the OP insurance company.

2. The District Forum after hearing the parties and appraising the evidence adduced by them before it, dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 4.03.2010.

3. Aggrieved by the repudiation of his complaint, the respondent/complainant challenged the order of the District Forum before H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla ('State Commission', for short) by filing an appeal bearing No. 129/2010. The State Commission vide its order dated 25.08.2010 set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint holding the respondent entitled to Rs. 1,78,959/- being 75% of the estimated cost of repair of Rs. 2,38,612/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 31.03.2009 till the date of payment/deposit, whichever is earlier.

4. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the State Commission, the petitioner insurance company has filed the present revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is seen that the District Forum has returned its finding in favour of the OP insurance company by holding that as per own admission of the complainant, it had been established by the OP that at the time of accident six persons including two minors were travelling as unauthorized gratuitous passengers in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum has also held that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle in question and keeping in view the legal position in this regard, dismissed the complaint.

7. We may note that the State Commission has dealt with both these aspects at great length in its impugned order before reversing the finding of the District Forum and partly accepting the complaint keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 2 CPJ 9 (SC) in terms of the relief given to the complainant/respondent mentioned above. In its impugned order, the State Commission has observed thus:-

"3. Mr. Lakhanpal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in question was a Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) as its unladen weight was 2800 kgs. Therefore, it was duly covered under Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As such, driving licence held b