State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionVinod Kumar Agrawal vs D.M. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 7 March, 2011CHHATTISGARH STATE
  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
              PANDRI, RAIPUR
                                              Appeal No.706/2010
                                            Instituted on 22.11.10
Vinod Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Santosh Agrawal,
R/o: Gandhi Mandir Ward Bhatapara, Thana: Bhatapara,
Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.)                                         ... Appellant.
              Vs.
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, No.1, Madina Manjil, Jail Road,
RAIPUR (C.G.)                                             ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBERHON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -Shri N.M. Sonkala, for appellants.Shri R. K. Shukla, for respondent.ORAL ORDER
                            Dated: 07/03/2011
          PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT

       This appeal is directed against order dated 21.10.2010 passed by

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter

called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.393/2009,

whereby the complaint of the appellant herein seeking compensation

for the alleged deficiency in service on account of repudiating his claim

for own damage to the insured vehicle has been dismissed on the

ground that driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective

driving licence.// 2 //2.    It is not in dispute that the vehicle No. C.G.04/JA 7294 was

insured by the respondent Insurance Company for the period from

19.10.2007 to 18.10.2008, which suffered road accident on 11.06.2008. It

is also not in dispute that Shri Uttam Kumar Yadav, was the driver of

the vehicle at the relevant time and he was possessing driving licence

No. U / 271 / R / Tata S. Claim was preferred by the insured before

the Insurance Company, which was repudiated on the ground that

there was no endorsement on the licence, permitting him to drive

transport vehicle. Then complaint was filed before the District Forum,

in which also, the same defence was taken by the insurer which

prevailed before the District Forum.3.    District Forum after having considered the material placed

before it by both parties dismissed the complaint, as described

hereinabove in first paragraph.4.    We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and

perused record of the District Forum.5.    Counsel for the appellant / complainant submitted that the

vehicle in question was a vehicle having total weight less than 7.5 ton,

so it comes in the category of light motor vehicle and for driving such

vehicle, the driver was possessing valid licence.// 3 //6.      We do not agree with the aforesaid arguments. Admittedly the

vehicle was goods carrying commercial vehicle and was insured, as

such, by the respondent / Insurance Company. When it was a goods

carrying commercial vehicle, then it comes in the category of transport

vehicle, which has been carved out as a separate category of vehicles as

per the provisions of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1989, as amended from

the year 2002 and therefore, for the purpose of driving such vehicles,

separate licence is required. Admittedly driver Uttam Kumar Yadav,

was not having any licence for driving transport vehicle. He was

having licence for driving light motor vehicles only, which was not the

sufficient to authorize him to drive transport vehicles. Therefore, as

held by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indrajit Singh 2011(1) CPR 200 (NC) repudiation of

claim was justified.7.      In view of the aforesaid, if the District Forum has disallowed the

complaint of the appellant herein, then it committed no error. We do

not find any substance in the present appeal. Therefore the same is

dismissed. No order as to cost.(Justice S.C. Vyas)      (Smt. Veena Misra)        (V.K. Patil)
        President                   Member               Member
          /03/2011                   /03/2011             /03/2011