PARVIN KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum -II], dated 10.6.2004 in Complaint Case No. 319 of 2002, Parvin Kumar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY the complainant s case is that he had got his Maruti van insured with the O.P. for Rs. 1,60,000/ - and the risk period covered was from 26.7.2000 to 25.7.2001. On 7.6.2001 he met with an accident near Phagu in Himachal Pradesh. F.I.R. for the same was lodged with the Police Station Theog (Himachal Pradesh) and O.P. was also informed of the accident. Surveyor deputed by the O.P. assessed the loss at Rs. 1,60,000/ - and submitted his report dated 12.6.2001. At the time of the accident the complainant was driving the vehicle himself and was in possession of a valid driving licence. However, the O.P. held that the driving licence was invalid on the plea that since Maruti Van is a nine -seater vehicle the driving licence of the complainant for LMV did not cover driving of this vehicle. The complainant got a clarifiction from the Registration Authority and the Home Department of Chandigarh Administration clarified that the licence for LMV authorized him to drive the Maruti Van but the O.P. did not accept this version and did not pass the claim. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint seeking following relief:

(3.) IN their version of O.P. submitted that the Surveyor assessed the loss as Rs. 1,40,000/ - and not Rs. 1,60,000/ -. The main contention of the O.P. however is that holding a licence for an LMV the complainant is not authorized to drive a nine seater Maruti Van and hence the rejection of the claim.