State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, New India Asurance Co. ... vs General Secretary, Rourkela ... on 6 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.555 OF 1998 From an order dated 30.04.1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela in C.D. Case No.452 of 1997 Branch Manager, New India Asurance Co. Ltd., Uditnagar Branch, Panposh, Rourkela, represented through the Divisional Manager, Cuttack Divisional Office, Kathajori Road, Badambadi Cuttack Appellant -Versus- General Secretary, Rourkela Consumers Front, Plot No. MIG-137, Phase-II, Gopabandhu Nagar, Chhend Road, Rourkela Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. P. Roy & Associates For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Jena & Associates P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT, AND SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:- October, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
This is an appeal of the year 1998 preferred by the opposite party-appellant Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Uditnagar Branch, Panposh, Rourkela through the Divisional Manager, Kathjori Road, Badambadi, Cuttack assailing the judgment and order dated 30.04.1998 passed by the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela in C.D. Case No.452 of 1997. By the impugned order, the District Forum has directed the opposite party-appellant to pay a sum of Rs.168,000/- together with interest at the rateof 18% per annum from 17.02.1997 till payment to the beneficiary Md. Nayaz Ahmed. The opposite party-appellant has also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation.
2. The complaint was filed by the respondent to the present appeal, namely, General Secretary, Rourkela Consumers Front, Gopabandhu Nagar, Chhend Colony, Rourkela on behalf of Md. Nayaz Ahmed, who, according to the complainant, is the beneficiary. The case of the complainant, as stated in the complaint petition, is that the beneficiary is the owner of a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration number OR 14-B 4179 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company. During the validity of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident, which was reported to the police as well as the Insurance Company. The beneficiary also submitted a claim application on 17.02.1997 to the Insurance Company, who after lapse of nine months intimated to him regarding repudiation of his claim on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the complaint was filed claiming Rs.1,68,000/- towards the loss caused to the vehicle in the accident, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation cost.
3. The opposite party-Insurance Company appeared and filed written version admitting issuance of policy in respect of the vehicle in question, which was valid from 03.08.1996 to 02.08.1997. It is stated by the Insurance Company that the vehicle is a transport vehicle for carrying goods. After the accident, the claim preferred by the beneficiary was received and a surveyor was deputed, who, after proper investigation, found that at the time of accident the vehicle was carrying passengers, which was against the terms and conditions of the policy. Besides, it is contended in the said written version that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In such circumstances, on the face of violation of conditions of the policy, the opposite party-Insurance had no other go than to repudiate the claim. It is submitted in the said written version that the complaint should be dismissed.
4. We have heard Mr. S.Roy for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Jena for the respondent and have perused the L.C.R. as well as the impugned judgment and order. It was brought to our notice by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that in the F.I.R. itself there is mention that the vehicle was being driven by one Bibek Prasad, the driver, who was holding a licence bering number V/9756/ 91/GHT. The issuing authority of such licence was the Liclensing Authority, Gauhati and the licence was granted for driving heavy motor vehicles only. It was submitted with vehemence by Mr. Roy that the investigator after thorough investigation found the said licence to be a fake one. Therefore, the subsequent renewal of the said licence by the Licensing Authority, Sambalpur can by no stretch of imagination validate the invalid licence. At the time of renewal of the said licence, the Licensing Authority, Sambalpur has noted that the driver is holding a light motor vehicle licence. Mr. Roy further argued that even if it is assumed for a moment that the driver was holding a liclence to drive light motor vehicles, the vehicle of the beneficiary being a Tata 407 truck and as such a goods carrying vehicle, a light motor vehicle driver cannot be said to be legally entitled to drive the said vehicle. Apart from that, renewal of a fake driving licence by some other Licensing Authority subsequently cannot validate the same. It was further argued by Mr. Roy that at the time of accident, as has been admittedly mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged soon after the accident, in the vehicle there were persons other than the employees of the beneficiary like the driver and helper and they were passengers and two of them succumbed to the injuries sustained during he said accident. Carrying of passengers in the goods carrying vehicle is certainly violation of the condition of the policy. In any view of the matter, the beneficiary, i.e., the owner of the truck, could not be indemnified as because there was clear violation of the condition of the policy inasmuch as the truck in question was being driven by a driver who had no valid licence and the vehicle was carrying passengers, which is not permissible in respect of a goods carrying vehicle, and it is the specific case of the beneficiary that he is the owner of the said vehicle, which is nothing but a Tata 407 truck and as such a goods carrying vehicle.
5. In that view of the matter, we have no other option than to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.1998 passed by the learned District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela in C.D. Case No.452 of 1997 and direct dismissal of the said consumer complaint.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
....
Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Subash Mahtab) Member SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack October 2009/Nay ak