BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 22 of 2013
Md. Sadique Abdulla Laskar ………………………….………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Represented by its Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Club Road, Silchar
P.S. Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam ..…………………………….. Opp. Party
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Smti. Pratima Ghosh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Debabrata Das, Adocate for the O.P.
Date of evidence………………………………. 21-10-2013, 06-03-2014
Date of written argument…………………….. 24-06-2015, 21-04-2017
Date of argument…………….......................... 29-05-2017
Date of judgment……………………………... 28-06-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Debnath)
- The case is brought by the Md. Sadique Abdulla Laskar of Dudpur, Katigorah, Cachar (referred as Complainant) against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (referred as O.P) for award of payment of repairing cost of Rs.38,036/- and compensation in connection with the insured Auto Rickshaw bearing Regd. No. AS-11-AC/0807.
- The Complainant brought the following story in order to get the reliefs as below:-
He is owner of Bajaj Auto R.E Diesel Mega Max passenger carrying vehicle No. AS-11-AC/0807. The said vehicle was insured with O.P vide Insurance Policy No. 53006001110100002778 valid upto 23/08/2012 from 24/08/2011. The vehicle was plying on the road at Govindapur near Panchayat Office on PWD Road on 06/04/2012 at about 8:00.AM. The vehicle was driving by paid driver Md. Saifulla Khadir Laskar Vide his Driving Licence No. F/T/5817/HKD/2011 valid upto 01/02/2013. But due to road accident on the aforesaid date, time and place the vehicle was badly damaged. Accordingly, Katigorah P.S case No. 143/2012 U/S 279/338 IPC registered. The fact of accident was duly informed to the O.P. and O.P. submitted claim Form along with bills and vouchers for repairing cost of the vehicle of Rs.38,036/- but the O.P. repudiated the claim on 21/12/2012 under reference No. 530600/31/12-13/JRP/3429 on the plea that policy condition violated by allowing an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle.
- The O.P. submitted W/S on receipt of the notice. In the W/S stated inter alia that on inquiry on verification it is revealed that the driver was not authorized or have no licensed to drive Auto Rickshaw and as such the O.P is not liable to pay compensation etc.
- During hearing, the Complainant deposed as PW and exhibited relevant document including insurance Policy and driving license of the paid driver Saifulla Khadir Laskar vide Ext. 5 & 6 respectively. The O.P. also examined Md. Fakhar Uddin Ahmed the Assistant Manager of the O.P and Exhibited the Insurance Policy, driving license verification report of investigation and report of DTO, Hailakandi, vide Ext. A, B and C respectively.
- We have heard argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P and perusal the written argument of both side counsels and evidence on record including all exhibited documents.
- In this case the fact of meeting accident of the above vehicle is not denied. But the plea of the O.P is that the vehicle was driving at the relevant time by an unauthorized person because on verification of driving license supplied by the Complainant, it is found that the driver Md. Saifulla Khadir Laskar was not issued any license to drive an Auto Rickshaw vide Ext. 6 D/L and Ext. C report of the D.T.O Hailakandi. The Ext. B, the investigation’s report also supported the fact revealed from Ext. C that the driver Md. Saifulla Khadir Laskar was not authorized to drive Auto Rickshaw. The said verification report and report of D.T.O, Hailakandi are remain unrebutted in the evidence on record. Hence, it is concluded that the Complainant allowed an unauthorized person to drive the Auto Rickshaw on public road. As such he violated the express terms and condition of the Insurance Policy. So, he is disentitled to get claim for damaging the vehicle on road accident.
- Not only that but also in the instant case it is clear from the evidence on record that the vehicle was driving by unauthorized person and not by the Complainant. It is also not established by the Complainant as whether he purchased the Auto Rickshaw for his self-employment. Of course, if a person purchased a vehicle for self-employment may engaged a paid driver to help him but he must established the fact that he is engaged himself directly to drive the said vehicle for his livelihood.
- In the instant case he did not adduce any such evidence to conclude that driving the said vehicle is his self-employment. Hence, it is opined that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and he has engaged himself directly to other profession. Thus, as per the section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant is not a Consumer.
- Therefore, this District Forum has no jurisdiction to award any relief to the Complainant.
- With the above observation and finding, this case is dismissed on contest. Supply free certified copy to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2017.
