UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JAYA RAJENDRA KUMAR NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by State Commission upholding the order of the District Forum which had awarded Rs. 44,500/- against the insurance claim filed by the respondent/complainant, Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony, and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant to the case are that the respondent/complainant was the owner of a Taxi which was insured with the petitioner Company met with an accident on 20.6.1993 within the insured period 24.8.1992 to 23.8.1993. FIR was lodged. Survey was carried out, but finally the petitioner Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence. It is in these conditions that the respondent/complainant moved the District Forum seeking relief of Rs. 44,500/- claim along with interest @ 18%, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony, and Rs. 4,000/- as costs.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines Driving Licence as to "mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Clause 11 authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description". If one sees the driving licence of driver Puran Singh who was driving the Taxi at the time of accident, it clearly states that the licence is to drive medium goods vehicle and also hold Badge Number for Auto-rickshaw. These entries do not permit the driver to drive L.M.V. Both the lower Fora have erred in law and fact to decide that if the driver had a licence to drive medium goods vehicle, he could drive light motor vehicle. The orders of both the lower Fora are bad in law and need to be set aside.