The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is entitled to repudiate a claim if the driver of the vehicle does not have a valid driving licence, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005 in A.S.No.212 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2003 in O.S.No.351 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.

2. The suit in O.S.No.351 of 2000 was preferred by the appellant against the respondent claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of damages caused to his vehicle on account of accident.

3. In the plaint in O.S.No.351 of 2000, it was the case of the appellant that his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-67-9927 was duly insured with the respondent for the period in question. The said vehicle was taken for hire to transport cattle to Tenkasi Mattu Santhai on 24.04.1998 by one Duraipandian and accordingly, while the vehicle was proceeding to the place of destination, it met with an accident near Pattathur Vilakku Road in Kalugumalai-Sankarankoil main road and in the said accident, the vehicle was seriously damaged. The accident was immediately intimated to the respondent. There was also a criminal case in respect of the said accident. Since the respondent had repudiated the claim preferred by the appellant, he was constrained to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin, claiming compensation. However, the said claim petition was dismissed with direction to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief and accordingly, by restricting the claim to a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the appellant has preferred the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the respondent and in the written statement filed by the respondent, though they have admitted the accident, they repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid endorsement to drive transport vehicle. It was further contended that though the driving licence produced by the driver of the vehicle did contain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the said endorsement was subjected to verification by the Transport Department and it was found that the endorsement was nothing but fake and as such, as on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid licence. In the said circumstances, the respondent contended that they are not liable to pay the amount to the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Judge, after framing necessary issues, ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for, whereby the respondent was directed to pay the amount to the appellant.

6. The judgment and decree dated 17.06.2003 in O.S.No.351 of 2000 was taken up in appeal by the respondent before the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin and the learned Judge framed two points for determination and ultimately, concluded that the appellant is not entitled to claim damages from the respondent and accordingly, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below.

7. The judgment and decree dated 30.08.2005 in A.S.No.212 of 2003 is the subject matter of the present appeal at the instance of the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.351 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.

8. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal:-

"Whether the Insurance Company is entitled to repudiate the claim on the ground of absence of endorsement in the non-professional driving licence of the driver to drive goods vehicle?"

9. The appeal came up for final hearing on 02.04.2008 and I have heard Thiru. C. Godwin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though the name of the counsel for the respondent was found to be shown in the cause-list, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent and as such, the matter was passed over in the morning session so as to enable the respondent to make submission. When the matter was again called in the afternoon session, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent and accordingly, after hearing the arguments of the coun