The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the validity of the driving license, the identification of the driver, and the extent of breach of policy conditions in determining the insurer's liability.

ORDER

Surjit Singh, President (Oral)- This is a complainants' appeal against the order dated 28.11.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby their complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which they filed against respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited, seeking issuance of a direction for indemnification for the damage caused to the insured vehicle, has been dismissed.

2. Appellants' predecessor-in-interest, late Sh. Gauri Dutt, was owner of a bus, which was insured with the respondent, for the period from 7.2.2006 to 6.2.2007. Vehicle was insured in the sum of Rs. 7,36,950, for own damage. This was the insured declared value of the bus. On 14.11.2006, bus met with an accident and was completely damaged. Admittedly, this was a case of total loss. Claim was lodged with the respondent, with whom the bus was insured for indemnification. That was repudiated on the ground that at the time of occurrence of accident, vehicle was being driven by appellant, Rajesh Kumar, who happens to be the son of the insured and said Rajesh Kumar did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and also on the ground that there were 60-65 passengers on board the bus against the prescribed seating capacity of 42.

3. Complainants felt aggrieved by the action of repudiation of their claim and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was alleged that the vehicle was being driven by one Sunil Kumar, who had been engaged as driver to drive the bus. It was denied that there were 60-65 passengers on board the bus. Complaint was contested by the respondent on the same grounds on which claim had been repudiated.

4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, held that the bus was being driven by Sunil Dutt, but his licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle had expired on 18.4.2006, which had not been renewed, and thus, the licence was not valid and effective at the time when the accident had taken place. As regards the second ground of repudiation, learned District Forum concluded that about 60 passengers were on board the vehicle and this amounted to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. With these findings, complaint has been dismissed.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. With a view to finding out whether the licence issued in favour of Sunil Dutt or Sunil Kumar, who, according to the finding of the learned District Forum, was driving the bus at the relevant time had been renewed beyond 18.4.2006 or not, we sent for the record maintained by the Licensing Authority, i.e. the Licensing Authority, Kullu. Record shows that the licence had been renewed on 4.5.2006, both for Light Transport Vehicle and Heavy Transport Vehicle. Therefore, the finding by the learned District Forum that Sunil Dutt too did not have a licence to drive the bus, cannot be upheld.

7. Learned Counsel representing the respondent submits that the evidence on record disproves the complainants' plea that the vehicle was being driven by Sunil Dutt. According to him, the evidence establishes beyond doubt that the vehicle at the relevant time was being driven by Rajesh Kumar, one of the appellants, who happens to be a son of the deceased insured. He has taken us through the statement, which was purportedly made by Sunil Dutt himself before the Investigating Officer during investigation of the case. Said statement is Annexure C-A. In this statement, he named Rajesh as the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time when the accident took place. However, Sunil Kumar filed an affidavit before the learned District Forum, in which he denied that the vehicle was being driven by Rajesh Kumar, and claimed that he himself was driving the vehicle. Learned District Forum has also placed reliance upon doctor's OPD chit dated 14.11.2006, or say the same date on which the accident had taken place, and in this OPD chit, Sunil is named as driver of the