Since the unladen weight of the alleged vehicle is only 1580 kilograms at the time of accident, as such the vehicle in dispute is coming under the ambit of light motor vehicle and the copy of D.L. filed by the Complainant clearly indicates that the driver is authorized to drive LMV, as such, we feel that having the valid D.L., the driver is very much competent and can drive the alleged vehicle.  We think that the concerned RTO might have overlooked the definition of “Maxicab” and “Light Motor Vehicle” as defined in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  Further we would like to make it clear that since the alleged vehicle is coming under purview of light motor vehicle, as such no separate endorsement is required to be mentioned in the driving licence to that effect.  Hence, the document filed by the Opp. Party i.e. information under RTI issued by RTO, Bhubaneswar is of no value in the present case.  Accordingly, the second point also goes in favour of the Complainant.    In this connection, the Complainant draws our attentions towards the landmark verdicts of the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.A. No. 5826 of 2011, the case between Mukund Dewangan Vrs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para no. 46 (iv) that “ The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect”.  We have also come across the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vrs Ajeet Verma, wherein Hon’ble Commission has held “insurance claim cannot be entirely rejected on ground of violation of provisions of M.V. Act”.      

9. Now coming to the third point, as per the discussions made in the foregoing paras, in our view, the Complainant is entitled to receive the repaired amount from the Opp. Party. Further as per submissions of Complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the Complainant has tried his level best to get the genuine claims from the Opp. Party, but failed, for which he is compelled by the Opp. Party to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such he is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering his suffering, we feel Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3000/- towards costs will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.
                                                                                          ORDER
           The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The Opp. Party, being the insurer of the alleged vehicle, is herewith directed to refund the repaired amount of Rs. 72,210/- to the Complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amount will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 01.04.2015 till payment.  Further the Opp. Party is also herewith directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.  

           Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of April, 2018.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.

               Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

           Member                                                                    President (I/c)