Tripura

StateCommission

A/15/2015

Sri Biplab Majumder - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. R.Datta, Mr. R.Das

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A-15/2015

 

Sri Biplab Majumder,

S/O Sri Naresh Chandra majumder,

Of Madhya Badharghat, Siddiashram,

P.O-Badharghat, P.S-West Agartala,

District-West Tripura.

                   ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

                   Vs

The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Agartala Divisional Office, GRS Tower, 1^st Floor,

RMS Chowmohani, P.O-Agartala,

P.S-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura.                                   

             ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondent.

 

 

PRESENT :

       

             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

             PRESIDENT,

             STATE COMMISSION

                          

                  MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

             MEMBER,

               STATE COMMISSION.

 

           MR. NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

          MEMBER

           STATE COMMISSION

               

 

For the Appellant    :      Mr.R.Datta,Adv. & Mr.R.Das,Adv.

          For the respondent   :      Mr.S.Datta Choudhury,Adv.

                                             

Date of Hearing         :     22.06.2015.

Date of delivery of Judgment  :

             

J U D G M E N T

 

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed on 07.05.2015 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 by the appellant-Sri Biplab Majumder is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C.-114 of 2013 whereby the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint filed under Section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 without any cost.      

2. The case of the appellant as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the appellant entered into a Motor package policy bearing No.130900/31/12/01/00000116 for Assured Sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with the United India Insurance Co.Ltd. , the O.P.-respondent herein covering a period from 09.04.2012 to 08.04.2013 for his vehicle bearing No.TR-01-W-0490 (Maruti Omni), covering the risk of accident.                                                 
3. It has also been alleged that on 04.06.2012 the said vehicle of the appellant met with an accident at South Manikbhandar on way from Ambassa to Kamalpur and got his vehicle badly damaged and on the next date of accident i.e. on 05.06.2012 the appellant informed the matter to the respondent-Insurance Company and claimed for compensation against loss or damage to the vehicle caused by that accident.
4. It has also been alleged that the respondent requested the appellant to get his vehicle repaired at his own cost and then to submit the bill for getting the amount to be incurred for repairing the vehicle reimbursed and accordingly, the appellant after getting his vehicle released from the Court of Ld. SDJM, Kamalpur which was seized by the police during investigation, handed over it to S.B. Automobiles & Servicing Center, Siddhi Ashram, Agartala, West Tripura for its servicing and repairing purpose and the appellant paid Rs.82,540/- for the said purpose to that service center vide voucher dated 13.06.2012 (Ext.6) and thereafter, the appellant submitted the same along with a request letter dated 01.08.2012 to the Divisional Manager of the respondent-Insurance Company requesting to indemnify the said amount.
5. It has also been alleged that in spite of repeated approach and persuasion, the respondent-Insurance Company by a letter dated 07.02.2013 repudiated the claim and denied to make any payment to the complainant and therefore, being aggrieved, the appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum which was registered as case No.C.C.62/2013, but the said complaint case of the appellant was dismissed for default and thereafter, the appellant as complainant filed a fresh complaint before the Ld. District Forum which was registered as C.C.114/2013 and the respondent as O.P. appeared and contested the complaint case by filing written objection.
6. It has also been alleged that the Ld. District Forum considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidences so adduced then by the parties passed the judgment dated 20.08.2013 dismissing the complaint and being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant preferred the appeal registered as F.A.27/2014 before the State Commission against the judgment dated 20.08.2014 and the State Commission after hearing both the parties was pleased to remand the case to the Ld. District Forum after setting aside the judgment dated 20.08.2014 with a direction to hear and dispose of the case and pass the judgment afresh after recording the evidence of the witness Sri Abhijit Debnath.
7. It has also been alleged that the appellant produced the witness namely Abhijit Debnath before the Ld. District Forum for his examination and thereafter, the Ld. District Forum after hearing both sides passed the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2015 dismissing the complaint.            
8.  That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2015, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the appellant challenged the admissibility of the investigation report of the O.P.W.2 on the ground that the said report was not presented before the Forum at the earliest i.e. along with written objection following the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 A of CPC and the view of the Ld. Forum expressed in the earlier judgment dated 20.08.2014 is contradictory to the view expressed in the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2015 and thereby, the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the implication of law mentioned above and erroneously passed the impugned judgment relying on the report of the investigation of the O.P.W.2, that the Ld. Forum ought to consider the fact that the appellant in his complaint petition as well as in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that Abhijit Debnath is his distant relative (brother) and considering such relationship he handed over his vehicle to him on request, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that the complainant handed over his vehicle to his relative Abhijit Debnath not on hire or reward, but due to love and affection and hence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal praying for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2015.           

Points for consideration.

9.       The points for consideration are (1) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in passing the impugned judgment and (2) whether the judgment under challenge in this appeal should be set aside as prayed for.     

                         Decision with Reasons.

10.  Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
11. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the evidences and other materials, we find that there are certain admitted facts. Admittedly, the appellant-complainant got his vehicle being No. TR-01-W-0490 (Maruti Omni) insured with the respondent- United India Insurance Co.Ltd under a Motor package policy for an Assured Sum of Rs.1,90,000/- covering the risk of accident w.e.f. 09.04.2012 to 08.04.2013. It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle of the appellant met with an accident at South Manikbhandar on the way from Ambassa to Kamalpur causing serious damage to the said vehicle. It is also admitted fact that the appellant on request of the Insurance Company got his said vehicle repaired at a cost of Rs.82,540/- from S.B. Automobiles & Servicing Center, Siddhi Ashram, Agartala, West Tripura. It is also admitted fact that the appellant submitted his claim for the said amount of Rs.82,540/- being within the limit of Assured Sum for getting the said expenses incurred by him as indemnified. It is also admitted fact that the respondent-Insurance Company vide letter dated 07.02.2013 repudiated the claim of the appellant and denied to make any payment to him.   
12. It is also admitted fact that the present appellant initially filed a complaint registered as C.C.62/2013 before the Ld. District Forum which was dismissed for default. It is also admitted fact that the appellant filed a fresh complaint before the Ld. District Forum registered as C.C.114/2013 which was dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 20.08.2014. It is also admitted fact that against the said judgment, an appeal being F.A-27/2014 was preferred by the present appellant, but in appeal the said judgment was set aside and the case was sent back on remand to the Ld. District Forum with a direction to dispose of the case and pass the judgment afresh after recording the evidence of one witness named Abhijit Debnath. It is also admitted fact that the Ld. District Forum after recording evidence of Abhijit Debnath passed the impugned judgment afresh dismissing the said complaint registered as C.C.114/2013 after remand. It is also admitted fact that against the said judgment of dismissal, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant referring to the earlier judgment dated 20.08.2014 submitted that in the said judgment, the Ld. District Forum took a view that as the investigation report of the investigator (O.P.W.2) was not filed along with the written objection submitted by the Insurance Company, the said investigation report (Ext.A series) was inadmissible in evidence, but in the impugned judgment the Ld. District Forum after remand has relied on the said investigation report (Ext.A series) for passing the judgment afresh. He also submitted that the view of the Ld. District Forum taken in the impugned judgment in this regard being contradictory to the earlier decision of the same District Forum cannot be accepted as a good decision in the eye of law. He also submitted that earlier stand was taken by the Ld. District Forum following the procedure laid down in Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C. in view of the provision enumerated in Section 13(4)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986. So, the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum on the basis of the said investigation report in violation of the Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C. cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court reported in (2011) 5 Gauhati Law reports 23.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that this Hon’ble Commission while remanding the case to the Ld. District Forum passed the order directing to examine one Abhijit Debnath (P.W.2) and accordingly, the appellant-complainant examined that witness after remand. He also submitted that it was the specific averment made by the P.W.2 in para-5 of his examination-in-chief on affidavit “that after the accident an officer of Insurance Company called me and sought for some documents and for acknowledgement also requested to put my signature in some printed as well as blank paper and accordingly, I put those signatures as per his instruction”. He also submitted that when there is such a specific averment of P.W.2, it was incumbent on the part of the Insurance Company to cross-examine the P.W.2 in respect of the alleged statement of P.W.2 as appearing in the investigation report, but the learned counsel for the respondent failed to cross-examine the P.W.2 in respect of the said statement. He also submitted that although the alleged statement of P.W.2 has not been tested through cross-examination, but the Ld. Forum erroneously relied on that statement as true and passed the impugned judgment dismissing the complaint and therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law.  
15. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. District Forum while disposing of the complaint case by the impugned judgment has travelled beyond the limit violating the order of remand and as such, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law and should be set aside and the appeal should be allowed by awarding the relief sought for in the complaint case.    
16. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the present appellant preferred an appeal being F.A-27/2014 before this Hon’ble Commission challenging the earlier judgment of the Ld. District Forum dated 20.08.2014 and in that appeal this Hon’ble Commission specifically directed the District Forum to examine only one witness named Abhijit Debnath. He also submitted that no opportunity was given to either of the parties to adduce any other evidence in any form. He also submitted that while remanding the case, this Commission set aside the earlier judgment and the Ld. District Forum was directed to pass the judgment afresh, and following that direction, the Ld. District Forum considering the evidences already on record and also the deposition of the P.W.2 Abhijit Debnath passed the impugned judgment. He also submitted that after the order of remand the District Forum has been empowered to re-appreciate the evidences with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned judgment afresh dismissing the complaint. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum while passing the impugned judgment afresh did not exceed the limit circumscribed by this Commission in the order of remand and as such having no flaw in this regard, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant being without any basis is not tenable in the eye of law.    
17. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that it is the prerogative of the lawyer of the respondent as to in what manner he would cross-examine the witness of the complainant. He also submitted that the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant cannot dictate the counsel for the O.P. as to in what manner he would cross-examine that witness. He also submitted that the learned counsel for the respondent-O.P. cross-examined the P.W.2 Abhijit Debnath in the manner befitting to the case of the respondent. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant cannot claim that his witness would be cross-examined in the manner favourable to his clinent. He also submitted that in view of the above position, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant regarding the manner of cross-examination of P.W.2 being unwanted is not acceptable.        
18. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is true that the respondent-O.P. could not file the investigation report (Ext.A series) along with the written objection filed against the complaint, but referring to clause (iii) of para-1 of the written objection he submitted that the Insurance Company categorically stated regarding the investigation done by the investigator Dibakar Gupta on 16.01.2013 which clearly establishes about the existence of investigation report made in connection with the alleged accident of the vehicle. He also submitted that in the consumer proceeding the strict provision of law of Evidence Act is not followed. He also submitted that it is not a case that the complainant-appellant was not aware about the said investigation report before filing the same in the District Forum. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum in the earlier judgment dated 20.08.2014 never held conclusively that the investigation report (Ext.A series) is inadmissible in evidence. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum in the said judgment only opined that assuming that the investigation report of the O.P.W.2 (Ext.A series) is not admissible in evidence, but that does not mean that the Ld. District Forum conclusively held that the investigation report is not admissible in evidence.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the finding of the Ld. District Forum in the earlier judgment dated 20.08.2014 was set aside in the appeal being F.A-27/2014 and the case was remanded to the Ld. District Forum for passing the judgment afresh after examining the witness Abhijit Debnath. He also submitted that when the finding of the Ld. District Forum given in the earlier judgment was set aside in appeal and in view of the direction of this Appellate Forum, the Ld. District Forum has been empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidences with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in re-appreciation of the same the Ld. District Forum relied on the investigation report and also considering the deposition of P.W.2 Abhijit Debnath and other evidences passed the impugned judgment. He also submitted that there is nothing wrong in re-appreciation of the evidences on the part of the Ld. District Forum while passing the judgment afresh, and in that case, there is no scope to rely on any finding of the Ld. District Forum given in the earlier judgment dated 20.08.2014 which has been set aside in appeal. He also submitted that in view of the above position, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the Ld. District Forum while passing the impugned judgment has taken a contradictory view in relation to the earlier judgment rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in law, is neither legally tenable nor acceptable.
20. The learned counsel for the respondent referring to exhibit A series (investigation report) submitted that there is a statement of Abhijit Debnath (P.W.2) against point No. 18 of the appendix A attached to that report. This statement is also witnessed by three witnesses namely Nikhil Debnath, Bishnu Debnath and Nandita Debnath who are the father, brother-in-law and sister respectively of Abhijit debnath as admitted by him in his cross-examination. He also submitted that according to the appellant-complainant, Abhijit Debnath put his signature on a blank printed Form. He also submitted that Abhijit Debnath stated the same in his examination-in-chief on affidavit. He also submitted that the said three witnesses of that statement did not come forward in the District Forum to say that the alleged statement was not written there while they put their signatures as witnesses. He also submitted that in that circumstance, there is no scope to say legally that those three witnesses also put their signatures on a blank printed form. He also submitted that due to the non-examination of those three witnesses there is ample scope to say that the said statement was recorded in their presence and after the completion of recording they put their signatures as witnesses to the recording of the said statement and also the signature of Abhijit Debnath as maker of it.
21. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted referring to the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the P.W.2 was confronted with the said statement in course of his cross-examination, but at that time the P.W.2 Abhijit Debnath nowhere stated that he did not make such statement as recorded against the point No.18 of the said printed form attached to the investigation report (Ext.A series). He also submitted that there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the respondent-O.P. that Abhijit Debnath made the said statement voluntarily and after the writing thereof he put his signature in presence of those three witnesses who also put their signatures voluntarily.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant was insured under a private car package policy, meaning thereby that the car cannot be used on hire or reward purpose. He also submitted referring to the ground of appeal No. (e) of the memo of appeal that the appellant-complainant in that paragraph clearly stated that “the appellant did not violate any terms and conditions of private car package policy by using the vehicle on hire or reward. So, the appellant is entitled to get his compensation from the respondent-Insurance Company for the damage of his vehicle as indemnified”. He also submitted that by the aforesaid paragraph the appellant in the memo of appeal clearly admitted that by using his vehicle on hire or reward he did not violate any terms and conditions of private car package policy. He also submitted that the appellant himself admitted in the memo of appeal that the vehicle was used on hire or reward and it is well-established that the appellant-complainant handed over his private non-commercial car to Abhijit Debnath on hire at the relevant time when the said vehicle met with an accident. He then submitted that the Ld. District Forum considering all the aspects of the case with regard to the evidences, facts and circumstances of the case and rightly arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned judgment which being proper, legal and justified, should be affirmed and the appeal should be dismissed.  
23. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the evidences both oral and documentary, the judgment dated 20.08.2014 passed earlier by the Ld. District Forum, the copy of the judgment dated 02.02.2015 passed in F.A-27/2014 and the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum. We have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. Going through the judgment dated 02.02.2015, we find that it was not an open remand, rather it was limited only to the examination of a witness named Abhijit Debnath on the side of the complainant. It further appears that the Ld. District Forum did not exceed the limitation mentioned in the remand order. Therefore, we are of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant to the effect that after the remand the Ld. District Forum violated the order of remand is not acceptable.
24. Admittedly, the respondent-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. filed the written objection in the District Forum against the complaint lodged by the complainant under Section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 on 17.02.2014. It is also admitted fact that although clause (iii) of para-1 of the written objection speaks about the investigation held on 16.01.2013 by the Investigator Dibakar Gupta engaged by the Insurance Company, but the report of the said Investigator has not been submitted in the District Forum along with the written objection (written statement) as required under Order 8 Rule 1 A of the C.P.C. It further transpires that the said investigation report was submitted in the District Forum on 07.07.2014. It also appears that the deposition of P.W.1 Biplab Majumder (complainant-appellant) was completed on 04.04.2014. It also appears that the copy of the investigation report (Ext.A series) dated 16.01.2013 was supplied to the learned counsel for the complainant on 07.07.2014, i.e. on the date on which the said report was submitted for the first time in the District Forum. It also appears that the said investigator Dibakar Gupta was examined and cross-examined on 21.07.2014 as O.P.W.2. Going through the deposition of O.P.W.2, it transpires that the learned counsel for the complainant cross-examined the O.P.W.2 concerning the said investigation report.
25. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that as the said investigation report was not submitted in the District Forum along with written objection, the same cannot be admitted into evidence in view of Order 8 Rule 1 A of the C.P.C.. In this regard, we find it appropriate to reproduce Order 8 Rule 1 A of the C.P.C. which is as follows :- 

          1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

          (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

          (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

          (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents-

        (a)produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or

        (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

26.     From the Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 1A of Order 8, it appears that defendant can produce a document which ought to be produced in Court under this Rule for taking the same in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit, but with the leave of the Court. From the record of the Ld. District Forum, it is palpable that the complainant did not raise any objection when the said investigation report was filed in the District Forum for the first time on 07.07.2014 on which the copy of the said investigation report was supplied to the learned counsel of the complainant who cross-examined the O.P.W.2 concerning that investigation report. Therefore, it is palpable that at the relevant time complainant raised no objection in the matter of filing the investigation report at that stage, although he had the opportunity to raise objection even in writing and also by filing an application to that effect. It has also been mentioned that the investigation report marked with exhibit A series has been taken into evidence by the Ld. District Forum. This clearly indicates that the Ld. District Forum accepted the filing of the said investigation report on 07.07.2014. This, on the other hand, establishes that the provision of law embodied under sub-rule 3 of Rule 1A of Order 8 has been substantially complied with. Not only so, the respondent-Insurance Company in clause (iii) of para-1 of the written objection filed on 17.02.2014 has clearly mentioned about the investigation done by Dibakar Gupta on 16.01.2013. It goes to establish that although the investigation report was not submitted in the District Forum along with written objection, but the complainant became well aware about the said investigation done by Dibakar Gupta. It means that the complainant was also well aware that he has to substantiate his claim before the Ld. District Forum even in the face of the said investigation report prepared on the basis of the investigation done by Dibakar Gupta on 16.01.2013. It is the settled principle of law as pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 155 that in the proceeding before the Consumer Fora, the Consumer Fora has to decide the case on the basis of the principle of law of equity, good conscience and natural justice. In view of the above scenario, we find nothing to hold that the Ld. District Forum by way of admitting the investigation report (Ext. A series) into evidence committed any error. In that view of the matter and on the basis of the principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned above, we are unable to place reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court reported in (2011) 5 Gauhati Law reports 23 referred by the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant as the facts and circumstances of the referred case are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

27.     The moot point in this case is as to whether P.W.2 Abhijit Debnath took the vehicle of the complainant-appellant Biplab Majumder for travelling from Ambassa to Kamalpur on 04.06.2012 on hire or reward. In other words, it is to be seen as to whether the complainant Biplab Majumder handed over his private non-commercial car bearing No.TR-01-W-0494 (Maruti Omni) on 04.06.2012 to Abhijit Debnath out of love and affection being his relative without any hire or reward. Admittedly, P.W.2 Abhijit Debnath is a Commerce Graduate and on that date he along with his three other office staff i.e. medical representatives namely Papan Sarkar, Mithun Choudhury and Santanu Saha were going to Kamalpur from Ambassa by availing of that Maruti Omni and on the way to Kamalpur the said car met with an accident causing serious damage to the said car. It is the case of the complainant that as per instruction of the Insurance Company, he got his car repaired from S.B. Automobiles & Servicing Center, Siddhi Ashram, Agartala, West Tripura incurring a cost of Rs.82,540/- vide voucher dated 13.06.2012.

28.     The complainant earlier did not examine the said Abhijit Debnath and after remand that Abhijit Debnath has been examined following the direction given in the judgment containing the order of remand. Admittedly, the investigation report dated 16.01.2013 contains a statement of Abhijit Debnath. According to Abhijit Debnath as stated by him in his cross-examination-in-chief on affidavit, an officer of Insurance Company after the said car accident obtained his signature on some printed blank papers. Now, the question arises as to how far this version of P.W.2 can be believed.

29.     P.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that he is a graduate in Commerce. He admitted in his cross-examination regarding the recording of the declaration in the said report. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent rightly submitted before us that it is the prerogative of the counsel cross-examining a witness as to in what manner he will cross-examine that witness to substantiate of the case of the party represented by him.

30.     Admittedly, Abhijit Debnath is not a laymen. It is hardly believable that an educated person like P.W.2 put his signature on blank paper on asking by a person who is not even known to him personally. Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant was a private non-commercial car and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the said car cannot be used on hire or reward. It is true that Abhijit Debnath in his examination-in-chief claimed that the complainant is his cousin brother (maternal). It may be that the complainant is the relative of Abhijit Debnath, but that does not mean automatically that the complainant handed over his private non-commercial car to said Abhijit Debnath on an official tour programme for going to Kamalpur from Ambassa for travelling with three other medical representatives as colleague of said Abhijit Debnath without any hire or reward. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not in a position to believe and hold that Abhijit Debnath put his signature on the blank printed form when no such statement was written there. The Ld. District Forum rightly pointed out that the father, brother-in-law and sister of Abhijit debnath did not come forward to depose before the Ld. District Forum at any point of time to say that they also put their signatures on a blank printed form. Be that as it may, we are of the view that Abhijit Debnath voluntarily made such a statement during investigation done by the Dibakar Gupta and on completion of recording his declaration he put his signature on the said form voluntarily knowing full well as to what declaration was made by him and at the same time, the father, brother-in-law and sister of Abhijit Debnath also put their signatures as witnesses to such declaration of Abhijit debnath voluntarily. We are also of the view that the plea of hand over of the private car by the complainant to the said Abhijit debnath out of love and affection and without any hiring charge is nothing, but a matter of afterthought.

31.     In view of the above, we are also of the view that P.W.2 Abhijit Debnath indeed took the private non-commercial car of the complainant on hire for travelling from Ambassa to Kamalpur on the date of accident i.e. on 04.06.2012 and on the way to Kamalpur the said private car met with an accident and as a result, the car of the complainant got badly damaged. Therefore, it is palpable that the complainant by way of giving his private non-commercial car to said Abhijit Debnath on hire, may be his relative, has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy regarding “limitations as to use” and as such, the Insurance Company cannot be asked to indemnify the repairing charges incurred by the complainant. We are also of the view that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and as such it cannot be said that the respondent-Insurance Company was negligent and deficient in providing service to the complainant.

32.     Going through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the Ld. District Forum elaborately discussed all matters connected with the case. We are also of the view that the Ld. District Forum committed no error in relying on the investigation report (Ext.A series) in deciding the case properly. We are also of the view that the Ld. District Forum after thorough discussion rightly arrived at the conclusion and accordingly, dismissed the complaint filed under Section 12 of the C.P.Act by the impugned judgment which, according to us, calls for no interference by this Commission. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is liable to be upheld and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

33. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum in case No.C.C.114/2013 is hereby affirmed. There is no order as to costs.

                      

                  MEMBER                           MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

                    Stae Commission          State Commission                 State Commission

                             Tripura.                        Tripura                                  Tripura