JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL) The complainant/respondent owned a Tata Indigo vehicle which he got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 11.12.2015 to 10.12.2016. The said vehicle having met with an accident on 21.4.2016 and having got damaged, was taken to workshop which gave an estimate of Rs.392518/- for the repair of the vehicle. Though survey was carried out, it is not known how much was the assessment of loss made by the surveyor on account of damages to the vehicle, but the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 29.4.2016 and 11.5.2016 which to the extent they are relevant, read as under:- -1- The survey has been carried out from our end after shifting the subject vehicle on

27.4.2016 at workshop M/s T.C. Motor i.e. workshop of your own choice. In this connection, we would like to draw your kind attention towards claim intimation made by you to our call center wherein the name of the driver at the time of accident has been given as Mr. Raj Kumar Bajaj i.e. your goodself and also submitted your driving licence copy. During scrutiny of the relevant claim documents, it been observed that the submitted driving licence is endorsed with LMV-NT, but not endorsed with LMVCAB as per provision of MVI Act 1988. The IV is a commercial vehicle Luxury taxi and you also booked the risk under Commercial Passenger Carrying Vehicle. Hence on the date of accident i.e.

21.4.2016 you were not holding a valid driving licence to drive the subject vehicle. In this regard we invite you attention to the Drivers Clause of the Policy which lays down clearly that the persons authorized to drive a Motor Vehicle as:

Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.

We acknowledged receipt of your letter dated 10.5.2016. In this regard, we would like to draw your kind attention to your submitted letter where you again confirmed that you were driving the subject vehicle and the policy is for Commercial vehicle- Passenger carrying. The vehicle is also registered as Commercial vehicle & class of the vehicle entioned as Luxury Taxi-Motor Cab/Taxi. Your driving licence is endorsed with LMV-NT only and type of your licence is Non Transport. But your same is not endorsed with either Transport or LMVCAB as per provision of MVI Act 1988 to drive the subject vehicle (taxi). Hence on the date of accident i.e. 21.4.2016 you were not holding a valid driving licence to drive the subject vehicle. In this regard we invite you attention to the Drivers Clause of the Policy which lays down clearly that the persons authorized to drive a Motor Vehicle as:

Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.

2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the respondent/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking the price of the vehicle alongwith compensation etc.

3. The petitioner filed a reply to the consumer complaint but was later proceeded ex parte. It was maintained in the written version filed by the petitioner that the driver did not have licence required for driving the insured vehicle. 1. 2. 3.

4. The District Forum vide its order dated 31.8.2016 directed the petitioner company to pay 60% of the sum insured alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation. It was also directed that if the order is not complied, the petitioner will be liable to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to the Forum.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 4.10.2018, the State Commission partly allowed the said appeal and directed the petitioner to reimburse 60% of the sum insured within 45 days. The said amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. if the order is not complied within 45 days. Cost of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded against the petitioner. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission.

6. Since the survey report has not been filed and admittedly was not filed even before the District Forum, it is not possible to know what was the quantum of the loss assessed by the surveyor on account of damages to the vehicle. Admittedly, the complainant himself had submitted an estimate issued by T.C Motor, estimating the cost of repairs Rs.392518/-. No revised estimate from any workshop was submitted by the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner / complainant was not entitled to more than the above-referred amount of Rs.392518/-.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant states that vehicle is still lying in the garage and was not got repaired by the complainant for want of funds, though according to him some expenditure has been incurred by the complainant on repair of the vehicle and therefore, interest should be awarded so as to take care of increase in the cost of repairs. Considering that the complainant did not get the vehicle repaired, he, in my opinion, is not entitled to any interest. He ought to have got the vehicle repaired at his cost and then claimed reimbursement with interest.

8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:- The petitioner shall pay a sum ofRs.392518/- to the respondent/complainant within two months from today. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation/cost of litigation to the complainant. If the payment in terms of this order is not made within 60 days, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order. ......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER