ATMA RAM AMAR NATH Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The complainant is the owner of the light commercial van canter Mitsubishi bearing registration No. KL-7a-2511. The said vehicle had been insured with the Opposite Party for the period from 10-9-90 to 9-9-91. On 13-8-91 the vehicle met with an accident and a claim was preferred with the Opposite Party. The claim was rejected by the Opposite Party on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having a valid license to drive a Transport Vehicle. Hence this complaint.

(3.) The Opposite Party in its counter pointed out that the vehicle of the complainant was a transport vehicle and that the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having a proper license to drive a transport vehicle. According to the Opposite Party for driving a transport vehicle a specific authorisation is necessary under the Act and there was no such authorisation in the license issued to the complainant. The policy is not therefore enforceable.