(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President)

This is insurer’s appeal against the order dated 09.06.2006 passed by the District Froum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 37 of 2005.

2. Complainant’s insured light motor vehicle (transport), registration No. UA07C/9508 met with an accident on 04.01.2004 near Shaknidhar, while it was on its way to Joshimath from Rishikesh for transporting goods. Vehicle was badly damaged. Claim preferred with the insurer was repudiated on the ground that the driver Sh. Vijay Pal was not authorized to drive the vehicle in hills and, as such, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998.

3. The District Forum considered the import of Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, which provides specific endorsement for driving public service vehicle in hill road and finding that there being no such endorsement in the licence of the driver, went on to partly allow the consumer complaint for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,61,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. on non-standard basis by making deduction of 20% from the loss assessed at Rs. 3,27,000/-. The District Forum also awarded Rs. 5,000/- as damages and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. On the contentions raised, the only question, which arise for consideration in this appeal is:

“Whether the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim on account of absence of specific endorsement for driving the public service vehicle on hill roads in the driving licence of Sh. Vijay Pal and the District Forum fell in error in awarding compensation, even on non-standard basis?”

5. Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, reads as under:

“193, Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads – No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a registering authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such registering authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon.”

6. It is settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and rules framed thereunder, lay down certain restriction on the use of the vehicles, the purpose for which they are used, the driver who could ply the vehicles as well as the State within which they are plied. If the restrictions are defied, they under the peculiar circumstances, result in the definite breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and repudiation of the claim by the insurance company cannot be taken to be a case of deficiency in service. In this background, the learned counsel for the insurer persuasively argued that in the absence of the endorsement, as is envisaged by Rule 193 of the above Rules, 1998, the driver of the subject vehicle was not authorised to drive the vehicle on hill roads and specifically at Shaknidhar, the place where the subject vehicle met with an accident on 04.01.2004 and, therefore, the repudiation of the complainant’s claim was legally justified. Learned counsel also submitted that in the face of the facts of the case, the claim could not have also been settled on non-standard basis and the District Forum incorrectly held that the insurer made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. This Commission has accepted the similar arguments advanced in recently decided cases and has held that the insurer made no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim on the ground that the driver’s licence had no endorsement to drive the public service vehicle or goods vehicle in the hills and, thus, reference may be made to the orders dated 27.11.2007 in First Appeal No. 268/2005; The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Budhi Singh Pharswan, da