The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification for repudiating an insurance claim based on the mandatory requirement for hill roads endorsement in the driving licence of the driver.

ORDER :

C.C. PANT, MEMBER

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar allowing the consumer complaint No. 263 of2008 and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a month from the date of the order.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant–M/s Hillways Engineering Company, a partnership firm, is the registered owner of a Truck, bearing registration No. UA07-C-7981. This truck was insured with The New India Assurance Company Ltd.–opposite party for the period from 16.03.2004 to 15.03.2005. The truck met with an accident on 02.11.2004 and got badly damaged. The complainant, after completing all2 the formalities, submitted a claim for compensating the loss to the opposite party. According to the complainant the loss was to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac, but the claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the driver of the said truck was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case allowed the consumer complaint, vide its order dated 19.02.2010 and directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- against the loss to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has filed this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material placed on record.

4. The preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the appellant, as also raised before the District Forum, in this case is that the said truck was owned by a firm engaged in commercial activity and, therefore, the complainant is not a “consumer” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is in respect of the validity of the driving licence. According to him, the said truck was being plied in hill area, but the driving licence of the driver was not endorsed for hill roads. Thus, the driver of the said truck was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The learned counsel also pleaded that the view taken by the District Forum that there was no such condition in the insurance policy that the driving licence should be endorsed by the transport authorities for hill roads, is legally erroneous. The insurance policy clearly says that only those persons can drive the vehicle, who hold a valid driving licence. If the vehicle is being plied in a hill area then the driving licence, if not endorsed for hill roads, is not a valid driving licence and the insurance claim is not payable because of the breach of the policy terms and conditions. Thus,3 the appellant has not made any deficiency in service by repudiating the complainant’s claim.

5. The learned counsel for respondent reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order passed by the District Forum. He submitted that the driver of the truck was holding a valid driving licence and it cannot be said that he was not eligible to drive the vehicle on hill roads on the date of accident. The driving licence was endorsed for hill roads on 11.11.2004, which also indicates that the driver was eligible to drive the vehicle on hill roads. In such cases, the insurance companies cannot repudiate the insurance claim in total. The claim, if not payable in full, should be settled at least on non-standard basis. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, referred to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Balbir Singh v. Shobha Kashyap & Anr., III (2009) ACC 521=2009 ACJ 546.

6. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the non-maintainability of the consumer compliant under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is co