DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                          C.C.NO.20 OF 2015

Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra         - President.

                 Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik   -  Member .

                  Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy       - Member .

Sri M.D Sakil, aged about – 35 years.

S/O: Md. Chand Basa At Near Hanuman Mandir, Circular Road

PO/PS: Phulbani Town Dist: Kandhamal                                              ……………………….. Complainant .

                                Versus.

1. The Deputy Manager

Business Centre Hub,Bhubaneswar Regional Office,

National Insurance Co. Ltd6th Floor, IDCO Towers

Janapath , Bhubaneswar – 751022.

2. Regional Transpoert Officer

and licencing Authority , Phulbani Dist :Kandhamal- 762001.             …………………………….. OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri K. Gautam Rao, Advocate Phulbani

For the OPP. Parties: For O.P No.1: Sri V.V .Ramdas, Advocate, Phulbani

                                          For O.P No.2:   None

Date of Order: 28-12-2016

                                                                                                O R D E R

                                                The case of the Complainant in brief is that he is the owner of One Indigo CS car bearing Regd No. OR-05-AP-0122 which was fiananced by State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch in the year 2012 under unemployment Youth upliftment Scheme. One Mr. Seikh Gafur was his driver having valid license bearing No. OR-1220040006469, issued by licensing authority, Phulbani. The said vehicle was insured under O.P No.1 vide policy No. 166022311410000001 which was valid from

                                                                                                      -2-

 04-04-2014 to 03-04-2015. The Secretary of Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack has issued a valid permit in respect of this said vehicle which was valid from 12-03-2011 to 11-03-2016.The tax has been paid from 07-03-2011 to 31-03-2026. On 25-10-2014 the said vehicle met an accident for which the vehicle was damaged. The Complainant submitted the claim application for his damage vehicle before the O.P No.1 but the same was repudiated with a ground that there was no effective valid driving license of the driver at the time of accident. So the Complainant clarified the position by enclosing a clarification letter of R.T.O, Kandhamal ,Phulbani vide his letter no. 1342 dated 12-10-2010 but the O.P had not taken the matter into consideration and  repudiated the claim of the Complainant .

                                                The further case of the Complainant is that the third party injured filed MACT case wherein the Insurance Company compromised with the injured and paid the claim amount as the relevant documents of the vehicle were in order. Hence, the Complainant has filed this complaint claiming  repairing cost of the damage vehicle to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment including cost of litigation.

                                                The case of the O.P No.1 as per his version is that the Complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a Consumer as per section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. There is no cause of action to file this case and the case is not maintainable due to non joinder of necessary parties’ .The civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case. The driver of the vehicle had not valid license at the time of accident. In this instant case the driver is not authorized to drive the insured passenger carrying vehicle. The company rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant .There is no deficiency in service and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                The O.P No.2 was set exparte on 16-10-2015 as he failed to file any version on his behalf.

                                                During course of hearing the Complainant has filed an affidavit in support of his evidence. He was examined and cross examined. He has filed some documents in support of his case which were marked Exit -1 to Exit-11. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.P No.1, the affidavit filed by the Complainant and his deposition, the documents filed by him and all exhibits. We have also heard arguments from both the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

                                                The soul point for consideration in this case is that whether the driver of the vehicle was in possession of a valid driving licence and authorized to drive passenger carrying vehicles at the time of accident or not? On perusal of Exit-11 it is seen that this letter has given by Regional Transport Officer, Kandhamal Phulbani, the O.P No.2.He had given this letter to the advocate of the Complainant under R.T.I Act .It is mentioned in the said letter as per following:

1.S.K Gafur S/O-Md Chandbasa at- Hanuman Mandir Street , has authorized to drive Motor Cycle with gear, Light Motor vehicle , Non- Transport ,Transport  vehicle M/HMV( Rigid Chassis) –Goods.

                                                                                                         -3-

2. As per CMV Rule in Form -2(35) & (47) of CMV Act, 1988 he may drive passenger carrying vehicle as he has valid license to drive Transport vehicle.

                                                 It is also seen from Exit-4 the driving license of the driver of the vehicle that the driving license was valid from 15-02-2011 to 14-02-2017. As per the complaint the alleged accident was held on 25-10-2014. So it cannot be said that at the material time of accident the driver was not in possession of a valid driving license. From Exit-4 and Exit-11 it is crystal clear that the driver of the alleged vehicle was authorized to drive passenger carrying vehicles and he has a valid driving license at the time of accident of the vehicle. Hence, Exit-1 the letter dated 18-05-2015 issued by O.P No.1 to the Complainant to repudiate his claim has no merit.

                                                As per above discussion the Complainant is entitled to get his repairing cost of the damaged vehicle and compensation from the O.P No.1 as he has committed deficiency in service on his part by repudiating the claim of the Complainant . The O.P No.1 has not engaged any surveyor to know the possession of the vehicle after getting claim application from the Complainant which also amounts to negligence on the part of O.P No.1 .Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest against O.P No.1 and  exparte against O.P No.2.

                                                The O.P No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of the repair charge of the damaged vehicle to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation for mental agony and financial loss of the Complainant  within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order . In case of failure the Complainant is entitled to get 10 % interest per annum on the entire awarded amount from the date of filing of this case it is from 02-07-2015 till the date of realization.

                                                This C.C is disposed of accordingly. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.

                  MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT