Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.     Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased  insurance policy for his tractor  bearing Registration No.OR-03D-6833 covering the risk period from 29.5.2008 to 28.5.2009 on payment of due premium. It is alleged inter alia that on 13.12.2008 while the complainant was using the tractor suddenly the said tractor caught fire due to mechanical defect and caused damage. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and the insurer. Surveyor was deputed who computed the loss but the OP repudiated the claim stating that  the driver has no valid driving licence at the time of  fire accident. So, the complaint was filed.

4.     OP has filed written version admitting that the tractor was having insurance policy. It is averred in the written version that the OP deputed the surveyor who computed the loss at Rs.2,50,000/- after deducting salvage but they repudiated the claim due to absence of valid driving licence of the driver who was driving the tractor at the time of fire accident. Further, they repudiated the claim as the tractor has goods carriage policy but it was being used for harvesting crops. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.     Learned District Forum after hearing both parties

passed the following order:-

                        “xxx   xxx   xxx

The OP is directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy five thousand) to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum form Dt.19/06/2000till payment in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost is allowed.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the driver has no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle when the vehicle caught fire. Moreover, he submitted that the tractor was being used other than the purpose it was insured. Learned District Forum has committed error in law by applying judicial mind to all the above facts and passed a wrong and illegal order which should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.     After going through the pleadings the only issue emerge in this case is whether the vehicle was being used for harvesting crop other than policy condition and whether the driving licence of driver is required  for such fire occurrence. The complainant has produced the policy in question which shows that it is a Kisan Package policy and the tractor has already been insured. It appears that since it is a Kishan Package Policy, it covers the fire accident to the tractor while harvesting paddy and the same fact is also noted by the learned District Forum.

9.     Since it is a case where  fire occurred at the time of driving the tractor, the driving licence of the driver was verified  but the OP without making effort to verify the driving licence under law simply objected  by stating  that the driver has no valid and effective driving licence. When the complainant claims that the driver has got valid driving licence, any sort of contradiction to this fact must be proved by the OP. But OP has not proved the driving licence of the driver   as in valid. Apart from this since the tractor got fire due to mechanical problem, admittedly the validity of  driving licence of driver is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to reject claim. Apart from this, since the Kishan Package  Policy  is not a Goods Package Policy the question of use of tractor other than  same  is not proved by the OP. On both the grounds we find that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service   in repudiating the claim by the OP.

10.   The best evidence is surveyor’s report which has been already filed before the learned District Forum. On perusal of the same, it appears that the surveyor has found net loss as Rs.2,65,952/-.

11.   In view of above discussion, we are agreeable with the finding of the learned District Forum and accordingly do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.