(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President) :

The appellant in this matter is the insurer. The order challenged dated 26.09.2006 was passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 02/2003, whereby the insurer was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 34,750/- together with interest @ 8% p.a. within the stipulated period and to further pay sum of Rs. 1,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2. The matter pertain to accident of Auto Rickshaw (three wheeler) which was driven during the period of insurance on 07.03.2002 by the complainant. The claim preferred was repudiated on the ground that the complainant was not having a valid driving licence to driving a three wheeler, a public carrier vehicle at the time of the accident. The plea raised in defence before the District Forum was not accepted and complainant was awarded compensation on the basis of the surveyor’s report together with interest and litigation expenses.

3. The submissions of the learned counsel give rise to following points for determination of this appeal on merit:

(i) The complainant was not having a valid driving licence to drive a three wheeler, a public carrier vehicle at the time of the accident and the District Forum fell in error in not properly appreciating the factual and legal aspect of the matter in issue in rejecting the said plea raised by the insurer.

(ii) The District Forum wrongly granted interest @ 8% p.a. instead of rate of interest awarded in such matter usually @ 6% p.a.

(iii) The litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- awarded on the higher side.

4. Point No. (i)- Initially there was some controversy about the actual driving licence number of the complainant in as much as Xerox copies of two licences nos. T-383 and T-384 (Paper nos. 46 & 45 respectively) were placed on record. However, by evidence, the controversy stand resolved and it was found by the District Forum that some mistake was made by the transport department in giving the number to the driving licence and that the correct and actual driving licence number of the complainant is T-384.

5. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that as is evident from the driving licence, the same entitled the complainant to drive light motor vehicle only and there being no endorsement permitting driving of public carrier vehicle (three wheeler), the District Forum fell in error in holding that light motor vehicle driving licence entitle a person to drive a motor vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg and as such the complainant was having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of the accident. To bring home his point of view, learned counsel drew attention to the provisions of Section 2(21), 2(35) and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in order to explain the distinction between light motor vehicle, transport vehicle and public service vehicle. Learned counsel also referred to section 10(j) of the Act to impress that the driving licence of the complainant required an endorsement of motor vehicle of a specified description, namely, three wheeler, which was the subject matter of the policy of the insurance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant persuasively submitted that the complainant’s driving licence has endorsement of transport vehicle from 17.08.2001 onwards and to bring home his point of view drew our attention to the original driving licence, Xerox copy of which has been placed on record as Paper No. 66. Learned counsel also pressed into service the provision of section 14 of the motor Vehicle Act to support the view that the endorsement of transport vehicle is correct and genuine, which is evidenced by the fact that the licence was made effective for a period of three years and was as such also renewed for a further period of three years after expiry of initial period of three years of licence. Learned Counsel then urged that there has neither been gross violation of the terms