ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) (Oral) - Mr. Tomar in support of this appeal urged that the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle and the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence which authorised him to drive the same. According to him, unless the licence was endorsed specifically, the vehicle in question could not have been driven by the driver engaged by the appellant. With a view to advance this submission he placed reliance on the report of Surveyor which is at page 46 of the complaint file. 2.Before referring to the said report and dealing with this submission we may notice that Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. Section 14(2)(a) deals with issuance or renewal of driving licence issued the said Act (i.e., Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). Under sub-clause (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle it is effective for a period of 3 years. Whereas, in sub-clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 14; other licences are effective for a period of 20 years from the date of issue or renewal or until the date on which such person attains the age of 50 years. 3.Thus, we are of the view that in case of a transport vehicle effective period of a driving licence is three years under law whereafter it has to be got renewed. Report of the Surveyor shows on verification from the Motor Licensing Authority, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. that the licence in question dated 5.11.2002 issued in favour of Brij Lal driver was valid upto 4.11.2005. In the face of this position submission of Mr. Tomar that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence is without substance and is thus rejected. 4.Without in any manner giving up his earlier submission Mr. Tomar urged that interest has been ordered to be paid from the date of repudiation whereas it should have been allowed from the date of filing of the complaint. Looking to both the dates we find that this is not a fit case for interferring on this ground. 5.Lastly, Mr. Tomar urged that vehicle in question had 7 unauthorized fare paying passengers, who had hired the vehicle for Rs. 800 at the time of accident. As such, the policy conditions were violated. Looking to both the dates we find that this is not a fit case for interferring on this ground. 5.Lastly, Mr. Tomar urged that vehicle in question had 7 unauthorized fare paying passengers, who had hired the vehicle for Rs. 800 at the time of accident. As such, the policy conditions were violated. As capacity of the vehicle was only for 6 persons, one passenger was extra because 7 people were in it at the time of accident. In order to succeed this plea that appellant is required to show from cogent and reliable evidence, that the carriage of such passengers was either main or sole cause of accident and/or it contributed in causing the accident. Again there is no such evidence. Reference was made by him to the FIR lodged by one of the occupants, again at the risk of repetition, we may observe that unless it was shown that the carrying of one extra passenger in the said vehicle contributed or the accident was due to this reason no benefit can be derived by the appellant. It may be violating the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On this ground complaint cannot be dismissed. And where there are two views possible in a given situation in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, one favourable to the consumer needs to be followed. And what is the effect of unauthorised persons being carried at the time of accident is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1997(1) ACC 123 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 2054. 6.No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to make copy of this order available to the parties free of costs as per rules. M.R.B. ———————