ORDER

Dr. S.K. Kakade, In-charge President.—Aggrieved by the order passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission) in Consumer Complaint No.SMF/MUM/200/2004 decided on 11th January, 2008, dismissing the complaint the original complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission in 2008.

2. Brief facts of this appeal are as follows:

Complainant was the owner of a Tata Tanker as a commercial goods carrying vehicle for which he had purchased insurance policy bearing No.120100/31/02/01436. The insurance policy was in existence from 08/06/2002 to 07/06/2003. This appellant was covering the liability of the insured vehicle when in operation as well as during unloading of the motor vehicle. The cover was of Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to third party property damage to an unlimited amount. The said vehicle was used for transporting liquid products and was approved by R.T.O. On 17th November, 2002 the said vehicle was loaded with 12000 litres of HEXENE in a stationery and idle condition that was within the safe factory premises of Suven Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Industrial Estate in Andhra Pradesh. While unloading suddenly fire broke out and spread out to an entire tanker and in which two persons including driver were seriously injured. The complainant lodged insurance claim with the respondent i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited, but, the respondent insurance company repudiated the claim by giving reason that the driving licence of the driver was not endorsed for carriage and transport of hazardous goods. The repudiation letter is dated 11th December, 2003. Aggrieved by this repudiation the complainant filed complaint before the Ld. District Commission praying for the insurance claim of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- towards loss of his livelihood from February, 2003 to May, 2004 along with interest, and costs of litigation of Rs.25,000/-.

3. The complaint was defended by the opponent, the present respondent and by referring Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules only trained drivers were entitled to handle the hazardous goods with proper and valid endorsement on the driving licence. As per the contention of respondent/ opponent in the complaint before the District Commission the driver of the said vehicle was not qualified to drive the vehicle containing hazardous goods as the licence was not endorsed. Ld. District Commission after hearing both the parties was pleased to dismiss the complaint stating that the repudiation of the claim was proper and accepted the reason of the repudiation that the driver of this vehicle was not having endorsement on his driving licence. This order was passed on 11th January, 2008.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. District Commission the original complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission.

5. For some time this appeal was in sine-die list and it was brought before the Commission only after it was taken out of sine-die list i.e. in the year 2018 and after hearing rival contentions of both the parties, submissions made by Ld. Advocates representing both the parties, perusal of record following points arise for our determination and we record our findings against them for the reasons given against them:

6. Ld. Advocate for the appellant/original complainant has brought to our notice that the explosion of the tanker took place when tanker was in a stationary and idle condition and was within the safe factory premises of Suven Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Industrial Estate in Andhra Pradesh. This explosion took place while unloading. At that time t