(Per : C.C. Pant, Member)

This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2004. Vide its majority decision, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

2. In brief, the facts of the case leading to filing of the consumer complaint are that the appellant - complainant had purchased a mini truck - Tata 1109, in the year 2002 bearing the registration No. U.A.03/0921. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 1 - the insurer under the policy covernote No. 31/2003/448 and was effective for the period from 08.05.2002 to 07.05.2003. The vehicle met with an accident on 03.11.2002 between Bagarihat and Khulbiyari, near Joljibi, Thana Askot, District Pitthoragarh and got badly damaged. The cause of the accident, as stated by the complainant, was failure of the vehicle’s brakes. Appellant informed the insurer immediately and lodged a claim for the loss. A spot survey was conducted by the surveyor on 06.11.2002 and the photographs of the accidented vehicle were also taken on 22.11.2002. As stated by the appellant, on the basis of the surveyor’s report the insurer had offered the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- against the claim, which the appellant refused to accept because the authorized service centre had estimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 3,97,000/-. Appellant sent letters to the insurer on 26.03.2003, 19.04.2003, 23.05.2003 and 26.08.2003 for settling his claim, but the insurer did not take any action. Appellant also sent a letter dated 19.04.2003 to the customer service centre. Ultimately, on 03.02.2004, the insurer - respondent no. 1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, thus, the insured - appellant had violated the terms of the policy. Upon this, the appellant filed the aforesaid Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Aggrieved by the said order, complaint has preferred this appeal.

3. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the material placed on record.

4. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle, effective period of the insurance policy and the date of the accident. This appeal is to be decided on facts as well as in view of the legal point involved in the case. On facts, firstly, it is to be seen whether the vehicle in question, which is a transport vehicle, is a light motor vehicle stated by the complainant - appellant or a medium motor vehicle as concluded by the District Forum in its order. In sale certificate issued by the seller in Form-21 (Paper No. 40), prescribed under Rule 47(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, class of vehicle has been mentioned as “LCV”. A careful perusal of the certificate reveals that initially the vehicle was classified into some other category and then that category has been erased and “LCV” has been written. The signature of the person attesting this cutting is different from the signature of the person issuing the certificate. As per details given in this certificate, the unladen weight of the vehicle is 4020 kg and gross weight is 10500 kg. We also perused the certificate of Registration of the vehicle in Form No. 23 (Paper No. 38), wherein also the class of vehicle has been shown as “LCV” and the unloaded weight and gross vehicle weight are mentioned as 4020 kg and 10500 kg respectively. Under Section 2(15) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 “gross vehicle weight” has been defined as the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and registered by the registering authority as permissible for that vehicle. As per definition, gross vehicle weight of the vehicle in question is 10500 kg. Under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, “light motor vehic