In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. -130 of 2007

Abdul Manan son of Jamluddin Khan village -Sihuli, P.S - Amas, District - Gaya... Complainant

                                  V/s
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, RJ Place, Rai Kashinath More, Civil Lines, District -Gaya........ Opposite Parties.
Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated:- 07^th  February of 

                                                ORDER

1. The instant case is being heard in the light of order passed by the Honorable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna dated 18th September 

                                              Case No. -130 of 2007

the order passed by this court on 24 February 

                     2.   Both parties appeared on 3rd August 

                     3.  The instant case has been brought by the complainant Abdul Mannan, the owner of truck bearing Registration No. BR 2G /

                     4.  After the accident which took place on 30th August 

                      5.  In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is owner of a truck bearing registration BR-2G /

                                                Case No. -130 of 2007

duly insured from the office of the opposite party and during the insurance period the vehicle met with an accident on 30th August                  6.  The further case of the complainant is that a driver Sartaj Khan has got a valid  Driving Licence issued from Koderma (Jharkhand) DTO having Driving Licence  No. 

                                      Case No. -130 of 2007

                   7. On duly service of summons and noticed the opposite party appeared and filed his written statement submitting that the petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has got no cause of action to Institute this case and the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on his face  of non production of valid Driving Licence.

                   8.   The relevant para No. 7 of the order of the Honorable State Commission is being cited here.

"Having considered the submission of both sides and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum as also the materials brought on record it appears that the District
Forum has not considered all the aspects of the matter in right perspective. The driver of the vehicle in question Sartaj Khan had got Driving Licence No.  /

                                              Case No. -130 of 2007

and page 6 the accident of this vehicle  held on 13th August period.This fact has been misinterpreted by the District Forum. We do not find any reason to repudiate the claim of the respondent complainant, however, the insurance amount has not since been indicated by any party, the complainant has claimed rupees  Hence, from perusal of the opinion of the honourable The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna we have no option to go details in merit of the case but to decide the amount of compensation only because the  Honorable State Commission has opined in para 7 of its order that they did not find any reason to repudiate the claim of the respondent -complainant.

                          9. Since the Honorable State Commission has opined that there is no reason to repudiate the claim of the complainant giving

                                               Case No. -130 of 2007

the reason and finding the same on the documents available on case record this court has nothing to decide the merit of the case but only to decide the amount of compensation on the basis of materials available on case record  or taking additional evidenc, if any.

                            10. The learning Council appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted by filing a petition that there is no survey report  available to him, hence the order may be passed on the basis of the material available on case record. When the original vouchers of repairing of the vehicle was demanded from the complainant it was submitted in  written that the same was deposited with the opposite party at the time of filing claim petition, hence, the same may be called for from the opposite party. when the opposite party was  asked  to submit the same he made no objection with the photocopy of the voucher submitted by the complainant. Hence, the amount of compensation is being decided on the material available on the case record.

                         11. Photocopies of vouchers, Receipt No.                                               Case No. -130 of 2007

₹ objection. So for  the bodybuilding  Receipt  dated 

We, therefore, of the opinion that there is deficiency in the service on the opposite party and the complainant have suffered mentally and physically and they are also entitled to get the compensation for mental agony and legal expenses.

we, therefore, direct the opposite party to pay total ₹ 1,24,248/- for expenses paid for repairing of the struct and ₹ 

                                               Case No. -130 of 2007

also entitled to get interest on the amount of ₹ 

                         Dictated and corrected

Female Member                  Male Member                                President

Sunita Kumari                      Syed Mohtashim Akhtar                 Ramesh Chandra Singh