D. P. Wadhwa, J. - (1.) Appellant has been non-suited by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the 'National Commission') on appeal by the insurer against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the 'State Commission'). Both the National Commission and the State Commission have been constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By judgment dated December 30, 1993 the State Commission had allowed the compaint of the appellant and had directed the respondent-insurer to pay to the complainant-appellant a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till payment for satisfying his claim under the policy issued by the respondent. The claim was made on account of damage caused to the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant and insured with the respondent.
(2.) Appellant was the owner of a Swaraj Mazda truck, a light motor vehicle bearing registration No. KA 28567. The vehicle was insured with the respondent insurance company in the sum of Rs. 2,82,000/- as per policy bearing No. MV/3440/91 for a period from February 17, 1991 to February 16, 1992. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle weighing less than 6,000 kg. The vehicle met with an accident on November 26, 1991 and was completely damaged. Appellant lodged his claim, with the insurer under the insurance policy covering the vehicle. Since the insurer refused to honour its commitment under the insurance policy. The appellant filed complaint with the State Commission claiming Rs. 5,61,000/-. State Commission allowed the claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 2,70,000/- and granted him interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of accident, i.e., November 26, 1991. The appellant also awarded cost amounting to Rs. 2,500/-. State Commission negatived the plea of the insurer that the vehicle was not being driven by person having an effective driving licence.
(3.) Against the judgment of the State Commission, insurer filed appeal before the National Commission which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated May 4, 1995. National Commission accepted the stand of the insurer as spelled out in para 14 of the counter-affidavit filed by the insurer before the State Commission. This para 14 we reproduce as under: "This respondent states that the said assessment of the surveyor was subject to the condition that the insured had not violated the terms and conditions of the policy. This respondent states that on verification of the documents produced by the insured revealed that the vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle and hence a transport vehicle. The driving particulars of the driver, Naga Saheb Jadhav which were produced by the insured disclosed that he had held a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle only which was valid for the period 27-2-90 to 26-2-99. This driving licence, thus revealed that Naga Saheb Jadhav was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. This respondent states that the insured had committed breach of the terms of the policy and violated the provisions of M. V. Act, 1988 in entrusting a transport vehicle to a person who had not held a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and as a consequence thereof, this respondent was not liable to indemnify their insured in respect of the own damage claim lodged vide his claim form dated 10-12-1991." ;