State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance ... vs Gokul Mirig, on 12 August, 2020
STATECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL NO.434 OF 2004
(From an order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the District Forum,
Sambalpur in C.D.Case No. 113 of 2003)
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,Sambalpur
through its Senior Divisional Manager,
At - Nayapara, Sambalpur now represented
through the Regional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Office at Alok Bharati Towers,
IVth Floor, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar
... Appellant
Vrs.
Gokul Mirig,
S/o Sitaram Mirig,
Village - Gadamunda, Dist - Sambalpur
... Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s G.P.Dutta& Associates
For the respondent : None
_____________
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY,PRESIDENT
AND
DR. S.MOHANTY,MEMBER
2
DATED THE 12th AUGUST,2020
ORDER
DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY,J., PRESIDENT This appeal is directed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the "Act") against the order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Sambalpur in C.D.Case No. 113 of 2003 wherein the District Forum has directed the appellant to pay Rs.40,489.72 to the respondent towards the repairing cost of the tractor besides Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
2. Appellant was the OP whereas the respondent was the complainant before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly the complainant insured the vehicle (Tractor) having 3 Regd. No. OR-15C-9826 with the OP under Goods Carrying Commercial vehicle Package policy. According to him, the tractor allegedly met with accident on 25.8.2002 and sustained damages. The complainant made claim for compensation from the OP but the OP repudiated the claim stating that the driver has no valid driving licence and the tractor has no fitness certificate on which date the accident took place.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned District Forum without understanding the plea of the OP passed illegal order by allowing the complaint and directed the appellant to pay repairing cost of the tractor besides Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned District Forum has erred in law by going through the report of the RTO which clearly shows that the driver is authorised to drive the tractor but not the trailer whereas the 4 accident took place while driving the tractor along with trailer. The learned District Forum ought to have decided whether the claim can be allowed when the vehicle has no fitness certificate under the M.V.Act on the date when accident took place. According to him, the repudiation of claim being proper and correct the finding of the learned District Forum is baseless and illegal. So it should be set aside.
6. The respondent remained absent even if notice against him made sufficient.
7. The main point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order. It is admitted fact that the tractor of the complainant was insured under commercial vehicle package policy. It is admitted fact that accident took place on 25.8.2002. The complainant has 5 filed the documents like copies of driving licence, insurance policy and the copy of the report of the RTO and certified copy of register of Motor Vehicles. He has also filed the copy of the surveyor's report to justify the claim.
9. The copy of the repudiation of the claim shows that the claim has been repudiated only on two grounds. First one is that on the date of occurrence there is no fitness certificate of offending vehicle and the driver has no driving licence under transport category. The copy of the driving licence shows that the driver Prasanta Kumar Mirig has been given licence to drive tractor only for the period from 18.9.1999 to 17.9.2019. Similarly the said document shows that Sri Mirig is authorised to drive the tractor only for the above period and the same is taken as non-transport vehicle. This has been issued on 28.1.2003. Thus, it is clear that the driver has got driving license to drive tractor only which is non-transport vehicle. This view gets support from the register of Motor Vehicles because the 6 vehicle in question has been registered under the category "Transport vehicle" as it has been attached with a trailer whose registration No. is OR-15C-9827. Thus, it is clear that the driver has no transport vehicle licence to drive tractor attached with trailer.
10. The certificate of fitness shows that the tractor has got validity of fitness from 8.7.1999 to 7.7.2001 and 24.9.2002 to 23.9.2003 but it has no validity on the date of accident on 25.8.2002. Under Motor Vehicles Act if the fitness certificate is not there, the vehicle cannot run on the road and it should be off road. The tractor being utilised for agricultural purpose cannot be allowed to run wherever it may be. Unless the vehicle runs on the road the claim of insurance policy which is valid cannot be settled. It is true that if the vehicle is standing on the road and some other vehicle dashed, then such vehicle is not offending vehicle. Thus, the vehicle which hit is the offending vehicle.
7
11. Be that as it may, the reasons of repudiation of claim cannot be said to be unjustified. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these aspects but decided the case simply basing on the plea of the complainant without understanding the fact and law involved with it. Thus, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the OP for repudiating the claim. Issue is answered accordingly.
12. In view of above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and we do so.
13. The appeal is allowed. No cost.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.
..............................
(Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J President I agree.
.....................
(Dr.S.Mohanty) Member Cuttack 8 August 12, 2020