(1.) THE opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) THE respondent/complainant, being the owner of a mini door auto -goods vehicle, bearing Regn. No. TN37 AL 4992, insured the same, with the opposite party, for the period 13.7.2005 to 12.7.2006. The complainant, being the qualified driver, as well as being the owner of the vehicle, possessing light motor vehicle's driving licence, made an application to get an endorsement, in the licence, so as to enable him to drive a commercial vehicle. This being the position, unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident on 18.7.2005, causing extensive damages, for which the complainant had to incur, an expenses of Rs. 44,499, to make the vehicle, roadworthy.
(3.) ON the basis of the policy, the complainant lodged a claim, claiming the amount, but the opposite party repudiated, as if the complainant had driven the vehicle, without valid licence. The repudiation is not justifiable, and it should be construed as negligent act, even warranting deficiency in service, which had caused mental agony to the complainant, for which the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000, in addition to a further sum of Rs. 25,000, for damage, to the reputation, as well as repair charges. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party admitting the insurance, its coverage, ownership of the vehicle, as well as the accident also, opposed the claim, that the driver had driven the vehicle, without valid endorsement, to drive a commercial vehicle, thereby he had committed breach of law, as well as violated the conditions of the policy, thereby making it as void, and on this ground alone, repudiation was justifiably, legally informed, which will not come within the meaning of deficiency in service, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;