K.K. Srivastava, President:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, they perused the impugned order dated 30.1.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 590 of 2001.
2. The sole ground on which the claim of the respondent/complainant was repudiated by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) is that the driver of the concerned vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. The driver held a licence to drive the scooter/motorcycle/car/jeep only. The concerned vehicle in the instant case was Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No. CH-01-X 3122 which has eight seats.
3. It is relevant to note that the Maruti Omni Van is included in the category of Light Motor Vehicle (Transport Vehicle). A person who holds a valid licence to drive car/jeep/scooter/motorcycle is competent to drive any Light Motor Vehicle and as a matter of fact, the competent authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act are issuing licence for driving Light Motor Vehicles only and are now not specifying the type of the Light Motor Vehicle.
4. The District Forum relied on the judgment of this Commission given in the case of Inderjit Gulati v. United India Insurance Co., Case No. 18 of 1998 dated 18.10.1999, wherein it was held that a person authorised to drive car and jeep is also entitled to drive Tata Sumo provided that it is registered as a private car. Tata Sumo has the same seating capacity as the vehicle involved in the instant case, i.e., Maruti Omni Van. Reference has also been made to the judgment the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hardayan Singh v. Chiranji Lal, I (2003) ACC 114=CXXXII (2002-2003) PLR 464 holding that a licence granted for scooter/motorcycle/car and jeep shall be considered to be driving licence for Light Motor Vehicles as per definition of Light Motor Vehicle as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. The District Forum, in our considered view, has rightly held that the appellant was liable to pay the assessed amount of Rs. 11,796/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 5.12.1999 [after a period of three months for settling the claim from the Surveyors report dated 5.9.2000] till the date of payment.
6. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.