ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 26.07.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 75/2015 title Ajay Kumar v. The Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Ajay Kumar complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased vehicle No.HP-68-2186 under loan case and hypothecated the vehicle with Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Rait District Kangra H.P. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 750000/-(Seven lac fifty thousand) w.e.f. 14.11.2010 to 13.11.2011. It is pleaded that complainant vide agreement handed over the vehicle for driving to Devinder Singh for a period of 6 months. It is further pleaded that complainant engaged the driver Devinder Singh after obtaining his driving test and also checked his driving licence No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 dated 16.11.2009. It is pleaded that that after satisfying about the authenticity of driving licence complainant employed Devinder Singh as driver. It is pleaded that on 15.06.2011 when the truck was plied from Dhami to Basantpur it rolled into rivulet. It is pleaded that FIR No. 117 dated 15.06.2011 was registered in police station Dhalli District Shimla. It is further pleaded that driver namely Devinder Singh was injured and he was brought to hospital. It is pleaded that vehicle was totally damaged. It is further pleaded that complainant informed the opposite party about the accident and opposite party deputed surveyor. It is pleaded that surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1086663/- (Ten lac eighty six thousand six hundred sixty three). It is pleaded that earlier complaint No. 03 of 2014 was filed by the complainant and liberty was granted to the complainant to file complaint subsequently on same cause of action after claim reconsidered/decided by opposite party. It is pleaded that opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the tune of Rupees Eleven lac for estimated assessed damaged sustained by complainant. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) for lifting the damaged vehicle from rivulet by crane and complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) for mental agony. Complainant also sought relief of litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand). 3. Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) for lifting the damaged vehicle from rivulet by crane and complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand) for mental agony. Complainant also sought relief of litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand). 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant committed breach of terms and conditions in the insurance policy. It is pleaded that at the time of accident driver was not holding valid driving licence. It is pleaded that surveyor was appointed and surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 347518/- (Three lac forty seven thousand five hundred eighteen). It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and it is pleaded that complainant is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present complaint. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Complainant also filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegation mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. None appeared on behalf of respondents at the time of arguments. State Commission decided to dispose of appeal on merits. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and also perused entire record carefully. 5. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 6. Complainant filed affidavit Ext.CW1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is the registered owner of medium goods vehicle truck bearing No.HP-68-2186. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance policy was issued by opposite party to the deponent in consideration amount of Rs. 750000/- (Seven lac fifty thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 14.11.2010 to 13.11.2011. There is further recital in affidavit that as per agreement deponent handed over the vehicle for driving to Shri Devinder Singh on 15.05.2011 for a period of six months on monthly rent of Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that deponent conducted driving test of driver Devinder Singh and after satisfaction also perused the driving licence issued from the office of Transport Officer Phek Nagaland. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that deponent conducted driving test of driver Devinder Singh and after satisfaction also perused the driving licence issued from the office of Transport Officer Phek Nagaland. There is further recital in affidavit that on 15.06.2011 accident took place and vehicle rolled into rivulet. There is further recital in affidavit that FIR No. 117 dated 15.06.2011 was also registered. There is further recital in affidavit that on 03.01.2015 earlier complaint No. 03 of 2014 was filed by complainant on same cause of action and same was dismissed by learned District Forum and liberty was granted to complainant to approach consumer forum again after claim reconsidered/decided by insurance company. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has repudiated the claim on dated 25.02.2015 vide annexure OP-14 in an illegal manner and committed deficiency in service. 7. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Wazir Singh. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is working as a clerk with complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was purchased by complainant in the month of January 2009 and was insured with the opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 750000/- (Seven lac fifty thousand). There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was handed over to Devinder Singh after conducting his driving test and after verifying his driving licence which was issued by DTO Phek Nagaland. There is further recital in affidavit that 15.06.2011 vehicle met with an accident and fell into rivulet and was totally damaged. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent along-with owner of the vehicle visited the office of opposite party several times but opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Trilok Chand. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has examined vehicle No.HP-68-2186. There is further recital in affidavit that accident occurred on 15.06.2011 and vehicle was totally damaged. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the year 2009. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1086633/-(Ten lac eighty six thousand six hundred sixty three).. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit Ext.OPW-1 of Shri B.S. Kapoor Sr. Divisional Manager posted in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Mandi. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1086633/-(Ten lac eighty six thousand six hundred sixty three).. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit Ext.OPW-1 of Shri B.S. Kapoor Sr. Divisional Manager posted in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Mandi. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has committed breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. There is further recital in affidavit that driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that initially complainant supplied driving licence of Devinder Singh alleged to have been issued from Licencing authority Hoshiarpur Punjab. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party hired the services of surveyor and loss assessor namely Jayoti Prakash who verified the licence and submitted the report that driving licence was not issued by licencing authority Hoshiarpur in the name of Devinder Singh. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter complainant informed that licence was issued from DTO Patiala. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter opposite party hired the services of surveyor/loss surveyor Gurdeep Singh who submitted licence verifying report to the opposite party and licence was found fake. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter complainant submitted licence issued by licencing authority Hoshiarpur and same was again verified which was found fake. There is further recital in affidavit that during the pendency of earlier complaint No. 03/2014 complainant produced another driving licence of driver issued from DTO Phek Nagaland. There is further recital in affidavit that same was also verified by the opposite party and licence was not found as per provisions of Section 14(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has produced three driving licences and all were fake. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. There is further recital in affidavit that Shri Dinesh Sharma surveyor has submitted report dated 05.08.2012 to the company and loss to the tune of Rs. 347518/-(Three lac forty seven thousand five hundred eighteen) was assessed subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that as driver was not holding effective and valid driving licence insurance company is not under legal obligation to indemnify the complainant. 10. 347518/-(Three lac forty seven thousand five hundred eighteen) was assessed subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is recital in affidavit that as driver was not holding effective and valid driving licence insurance company is not under legal obligation to indemnify the complainant. 10. Insurance Company also filed affidavit Ex.OPW-2 in evidence of Shri Dinesh Gupta. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is qualified surveyor and loss assessor vide licence No.SLA-3325. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has conducted the spot survey and submitted the final survey report in more than 5000 cases. There is further recital in affidavit that New India Assurance Company Ltd. has hired services of deponent and deponent conducted the final survey of vehicle involved in the accident. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 347518/- (Three lac forty seven thousand five hundred eighteen) as net loss to the complainant subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. 11. Insurance company also filed affidavit of Shri Jyoti Parkash Ext.OPW-3. There is recital in affidavit that New India Assurance Company Ltd. has hired the services of deponent to verify the driving licence No. 13040 issued in the name of Devinder Singh from licencing authority Hoshiarpur. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has conducted verification of driving licence and submitted report to the insurance company. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that vehicle No.HP-68-2186 involved in the accident did not fell in the category of heavy goods vehicle but falls in the category of Light Motor Vehicle because unladen weight of the vehicle was not exceeding 7500 kilograms and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused the definition of Light Motor Vehicle as defined in Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is quoted. As per section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is quoted. As per section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. As per section 2(16) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Heavy goods vehicle means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which exceeds 12000 kilograms. As per section 2(23) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Medium goods vehicle means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. 13. It is held that vehicle involved in the accident was not Heavy Goods Vehicle but was only Light Motor Vehicle as defined in section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. State Commission is of the opinion that driver holding LMV licence was legally competent to drive Light Motor Vehicle. As per driving licence annexure-C3 placed on record LMV licence No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 was issued to Devinder Singh which was renewed w.e.f. 25.07.2011 to 15.11.2015 by DTO Phek Nagaland. 14. Annexure-C4 placed on record was issued by DTO and Public Information Officer Phek Nagaland on dated 29.04.2015. As per annexure-C4 MC/LMV/MMV/HMV licence was issued in the name of driver Devinder Singh w.e.f. 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2015. Insurance Company did not examine District Transport Officer cum Public Information Officer Phek Nagaland who has issued document annexure-C4 in order to rebut the document annexure-C4 placed on record. Adverse inference is drawn against insurance company for non examination of material witness namely A. Toko Meren DTO-cum-Public Information Officer Phek Nagaland. 15. There is positive recital in the affidavit filed by the complainant that complainant had verified licence of Devinder Singh prior to his appointment and also took his driving test. Even learned District Forum in former consumer complaint No. 03/2014 had given liberty to the complainant to file subsequent complaint relating to same cause of action after claim reconsidered/decided by opposite party. Learned District Forum in former complaint No. 03/2014 ordered opposite party to verify genuineness of driving licence licence No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 issued on 16.11.2009 by DTO Phek. Even learned District Forum in former consumer complaint No. 03/2014 had given liberty to the complainant to file subsequent complaint relating to same cause of action after claim reconsidered/decided by opposite party. Learned District Forum in former complaint No. 03/2014 ordered opposite party to verify genuineness of driving licence licence No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 issued on 16.11.2009 by DTO Phek. Genuineness of driving licence No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 under RTI Act 2005 was verified by A. Toko Meren DTO-cum-Public Information Officer Phek Nagaland vide annexure-C4 with his signature and seal. 16. Opposite party repudiated the claim vide annexure OP-14 dated 25.02.2015 and complainant filed subsequent complaint on 17.06.2015 as per liberty granted by learned District Forum in previous complaint No. 03/2014. Consumer cannot be penalized for laxity of licencing authority committed under section 14(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no evidence on record that consumer took active part in preparation of driving licence No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 dated 16.11.2009. In view of the above stated facts it is held that opposite party has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum is set aside. Damage of vehicle to the tune of Rs. 347518/-(Three lac forty seven thousand five hundred eighteen) is ordered in favour of complainant and against opposite party. In addition complainant will also be entitled for Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) on account of mental agony. Opposite party would pay amount within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of order failing which insurance company would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realization. Other relief sought by complainant are declined. Annexure-C3 driving licence issued by District Transport Officer Phek Nagaland, report of District Transport Officer A. Toko Meren annexure-C4 dated 29.04.2015 relating to driving licence and report of surveyor Shri Dinesh Kumar annexure-OP10 dated 05.08.2011 will form part and parcel of order. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.