IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 46/S/2015.                          DATED : 08.09.2016.

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI SHYAMAPADA DEY @ SHYAMPADA DEY,  

  S/O Late Kamakshya Chandra Dey,

  Resident of Purva Kathalbari,

  P.O.- Palashbari, P.S.- Alipurduar,

  Dist.- Alipurduar.

O.Ps.             1.                      :  IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,  

  Shree Radha Apartment, Block-B, Shop#8,

   2^nd Floor, Iscon Mandir Road, Sevoke Road,

   Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                    2.                     : IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

  IFFCO SADAN C1 Distt. Centre Saket,

  Delhi, Pin – 110017.

                                    3.                     : KHOKAN MOTORS WORKSHOP,

  Opp. Siliguri Police Commissionerate,

  Near Dulal Garage, Darjeeling More,

  P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

Proforma O.P.       4.                     : MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL

  SERVICES LIMITED,

  Saturn’s Building, 2^nd Floor, Sevoke Road,

  P.O. & P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

  Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Pratik Halder, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

          The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is an owner of a vehicle bearing No.WB71-A/3818.  The vehicle was insured from 13.04.12 to 12.04.13.  On 09.01.2013, a neighbour was sick and needed to be taken to Nishiganj, Dist.- Coochbehar for immediate medical attendance.  The patient

Contd……..P/2

-:2:-

was dropped at Nishiganj, Dist.- Coochbehar.  The vehicle was retuning with four persons.  While returning from Nishiganj, Dist.- Coochbehar, the said vehicle met with an accident.  The son of the complainant was spot dead.  The two others were admitted in Coochbehar Nursing Home and one of them was admitted in Siliguri Nursing.  The said incident was informed to Mathabhanga Police on 10.01.2013.  Mathabhanga Police case no.17/2013 was started on 10.01.2013 and said case is pending before the Ld. ACJM, Mathabhanga.  Then the complainant intimated OP No.1 & 2 for claim for damages.  The complainant lodged claim for the amount of insurance or total repair of the vehicle.  The OP Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle plying beyond the rout permit.  Is spite of valid insurance policy, the OP Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim with baseless ground that vehicle was plying beyond the rout permit.  The complainant did not take any insured amount.  It is contended by the complainant as per law there is no necessity of permit as per provision of Motor Vehicles Act.  As the OP Nos.1 & 2 repudiated the claim, the complainant filed this case before this Forum.      

          The OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  It is contended that in para 12 the said vehicle was being plied in violation of provision of law.  OP Nos.1 & 2 again stated in para Nos.12 & 19 that it is very much clear that in case of a passenger carrying transport vehicle of which the gross vehicle weight does not exceed 3000 kg.  A permit is very much required for plying the said vehicle in the specific area.  It is also contended that there was rout permit of the said vehicle with a sitting capacity of eight persons.  But the rout permit was granted for the purpose of plying the said vehicle within the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri District only.  It is further contended that that the accident took place out the jurisdiction of rout permit area.  Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.   

          To prove the case the complainant has field the following documents :-

1.       Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.

2.       Photocopy of Tax token.   

3.       Photocopy of Pollution Certificate.

4.       Photocopy of Certificate of Insurance.

5.       Photocopy of Certificate of treatment issued by Kabiraj Jagat Mohan Eshore, Nishiganj, Coochbehar.

6.       Photocopy of FIR dated 10.01.2013.

Contd……..P/3

-:3:-

7.       Photocopy of Formal FIR.

8.       Photocopy of repudiation letter dated 22.11.2013 along with some other documents.

      Ld. Advocate of OP Nos.1 & 2 has filed some principles of law.  These are :-

1.       2015 (2) CPR 422 (N.C.).

2.       2014 (2) CPR 328 (N.C.)

          Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument. 

OPs have filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason             

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

          The complainant advanced argument as per their written complaint and OPs have also contradicted the same by written version. 

It is admitted position that the complainant had a vehicle.  The aforesaid accident took place within the jurisdiction of Coochbehar district.  That vehicle had rout permit but the rout permit is for the Jalpaiguri district only.  The complainant took the vehicle to Coochbehar in the night of alleged date of incident carrying some ill persons on the basis of urgent requirement of carrying those persons to Coochbehar and after keeping those persons in their destination, the vehicle was returning when the dreadful accident took place at dead of night in which the driver died at the spot and other persons were injured.

So, as per facts of this case, the alleged incident took place outside the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri district.  The vehicle had all other valid papers in valid insurance policy, but he had no valid permit for plying the vehicle in Coochbehar district and admittedly the accident took place in Mathabhanga Sub-Division, for which the case has been filed in Mathabhanga Court.  So, the OP has rightly passed the order for repudiating the claim of the complaint on the ground that at the time of accident the vehicle had not valid permit in Coochbehar district.   

Contd……..P/4

-:4:-

Accordingly, after deliberation of fact and nature of this case and plaint therein, we are declined to hold that there was any negligency or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

In the result, the case fails.         

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.46/S/2015 is dismissed on contest, but without any cost.

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.