The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competence of the drivers to drive the vehicles in question should be determined based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the State Rules, and the lack of specific authorization under the State Rules does not necessarily disentitle the owners to compensation.

These two appeals arising from the decisions of the State Consumers Protection Commission, Srinagar, involving identical dispute and common question of law were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Before adverting to the dispute involved, the facts may, briefly, be noticed.

2. In CIMA No. 104/2001, arising from complaint No. 23/2000 titled Irfan Sidiq Bhat v. Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., the facts are that the complainant owned a Tata Sumo bearing registration no JK-01D-5147 of 1999 model. He got the vehicle insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd.(in short the Insurance Company) and started running it as passenger taxi. On 7th September, 1999 the vehicle met with an accident at Bijbehara when it was blown up in a mine blast resulting in death of the driver Showkat Ahmad and two passengers on the spot and total loss of the vehicle. The complainant lodged an FIR and also raised claim for compensation. Elite Surveyors were appointed as surveyor to assess the quantum of loss. Jehlum Investigating Service Pvt. Ltd. was appointed to investigate the case. The said agency found that the driver was authorized to driver heavy transport vehicle and there was no public service vehicle (PSV) endorsement on the licence. The Insurance Company thus took the stand that as the driver did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and as such was not competent to drive the vehicle. This constituted a breach of the conditions of insurance on the part of the owner/complainant and hence he was not entitled to indemnity and compensation.

3. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3181 : (1999)6 SCC 620, on the ground that the weight of the vehicle was less than six thousand kilograms the Commission allowed the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 3,53,500/-

4. In CIMA No. 87/2002, the facts are that the complainant, Mohd. Aslam Khan, also owner of a Tata Sumo vehicle, got it insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. The vehicle met with an accident at Digdol on 20th April, 1999. The passengers including the driver, by name, Zahoor Ahmad, died in the accident and the vehicle suffered total loss. The complainant lodged FIR and raised claim for compensation. After the preliminary survey confirmed the loss, the Insurance Company appointed Elite Surveyors to assess the loss. The loss was assessed at Rs. 2. 82 lakhs on market value basis. The parties accordingly settled the claim. However, before payment could be made, it came to notice of the Insurance Company that the public service vehicle (PSV) endorsement on the driving licence of the driver was fake. On this ground the Insurance Company repudiated the claim which led to the complaint by the complainant / respondent before the State Commission which was registered as complaint No. 55/2000.

5. The Commission, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v Oriental Insurance Co Ltd (supra), took the view that the driving licence for light motor vehicles, including Tata Sumo, did not require public service vehicle (PSV) endorsement and, therefore, even if the endorsement to that effect on the driving licence was fake, it cannot be said that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident so as to constitute violation of the conditions of the contract of insurance, and disentitle the complainant to compensation on that ground.

6. Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, submitted that in terms of rule 4(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Motor Vehicle Rules 1991 (for short, `State Rules), a person cannot drive a public service vehicle unless he is authorized in that behalf by the licensing authority of the State. In terms of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a person can drive a motor vehicle at any public place only if he holds an "effective