SHUSHIL SHUKLA vs Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

APPELLANT Sushil Shukla s/o late Dinanath Shukla, Jabalpur had filed the appeal being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, Jabalpur on 5.10.93 in Case No. 126/92. The District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant and awarded Rs. 300/- towards costs and Rs. 250/- towards Advocate''s fees.

BEFORE the District Forum it was not disputed that the complainant/appellant''s truck No. MP-02 A-1600 was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jabalpur under Policy No. 3145050310780, which was valid upto 31.3.92. That on 18.10.91, appellant was driving the truck having a LMV licence. The truck met with an accident. That the complainant demanded from the Insurance Co. a sum of Rs. 21,036/-, whereas the Surveyor had assessed the loss to Rs. 10,028/-. The respondent the Insu. Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that he was having a LMV driving licence with which he cannot drive a commercial vehicle.

The complainant''s plea was that the truck model TATA 407, without load was 3040 Kgs. therefore he can drive the vehicle with LMV driving licence. The Insurance Co''s. case was that there was to be an endorsement on the driving licence that he is authorised to drive commercial vehicle. In the policy it is written that the weight of the vehicle is 5300 kgs. and as per the classification it comes under the category of LMV vehicle. There was no proof that he was authorised to drive such vehicle as per the M.V. Act of 1988, Sec. 3. Sec. 3. Necessity for Driving Licence. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him by authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Subsection (2) of Section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. (2) The conditions subject to which Subsection (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Govt.

HENCE, he was an unauthorised driver as per the section of the M.V. Act, till his licence does not bear an endorsement to this effect. His complaint was rejected on the ground that he was an unauthorised driver. When the Insurance Co. has decided the matter with application of mind and in good faith, then the Consumer Forum should not interfere in the decision. Here the Insurance Co. had taken into consideration all the relevant and legal facts and has applied his mind, therefore it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency in services on the part of the Insurance Co. In the result, the appeal is rejected and the order of the District Forum is regularised. The appellant is free to adjudicate the matter in the Civil Court. No order as to costs. Appeal rejected.