DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………
Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara, President.
2.Sri G.K.Mishra, Member.
3.Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 13th day of July 2016.
C.C.No.59 of 2014.
Ananda Naik, son of Parsuram Naik, Resident of Rugudipara,
Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
The General Manager, MAGMA HD. General Insurance Co.Ltd,
Magma House, 24 Park Street,Kolkota-700016.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Advocate for the complainant- Sriprakash Mishra.
Advocate for the Opp.Party - Sri A.K.Tripathy.
Date of filing of the case-25.08.2014.
Date of order - 13.07.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In brief, the complainant owned Mahindra Tractor bearing Registration No-OD-17-2209, under hire purchase, financed by Magma Fin Corp limited and insured by Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd. The policy issued No.-P0010400002/4107/107348, covered from dt.10.10.2012 to 09.10.2013.
2. The complainant submitted the vehicle met with accident on dt.28.02.2013. The accident occurrence has been registered under Sadar P.S. Case No.31/2013. It is averred the accident has been intimated Insurer located at Bolangir and deputed surveyor, assured to pay the bill in restoration of the damaged vehicle. Also submitted, the complainant has incurred Rs 2,00,000/- in repair the vehicle, in latter the company, insurer willing to settle the claim in payment Rs 80,000/- .The O.P violated the policy terms and conditions and give false commitment. Praying the O.P be directed to pay a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- towards expenditure incurred along with compensation and cost. No document relied as also no affidavit to found.
3. In pursuance to notice, the nature of consumer status be decided within realm of consumer protection Act. Admitted the vehicle, registration No, policy No “and validity, contended the occurrence is not within the knowledge of the O.P.
4. It is submitted, the petitioner failed to give any required document in process of claim settlement and also failed to co-operate. No assurance is given to the O.P at any point of time. The amount as fabricated without any substantiation and which is clear imagination inked to drag some money from the O.Ps.
5. Further submitted, it is false ,the O.P has violated the terms and conditions of the policy but complainant has violated in submission that the driver retained a non-endorsement & unauthorized driving license, which is a invalid and in effective one. So the claim is not tenable in the eye of law. So the case is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
6. Further submitting, the complainant failed to supply the required documents in settlement of claim and after verification closed the claim in intimation. The petitioner has filed a false case to extract handsome money. Relied with policy document, Driving license, letter of various dates, document check list, D/L , Smart card copy, Smart card RC copy, Certificate of RC, Goods carriage permit and cover note photo copies.
7. Heard both the parties at length and perused the record.
8. On perusal, it is observed, the petitioner has raised a story and not a single piece of document furnished or submitted in substantiation of same. No affidavit has been submitted although a huge sum of Rs 2,00,000/- has been superfluously claimed.
9. The petitioner submitted the cause of action arosed on dt.28.02.2013 but nothing is adduced in support of same. Again general insurance claim does not tend to a recurring cause of action as the certificate of insurance issued for a year only. In such a circumstances, the petition is non sustaining one.
10. Per contra the O.P vehemently argued and adduced with enormous document for consideration. Although we considered and given sufficient & multiple opportunities to the petitioner in submission of relevant document, but it failed.
11. Having gone through the records as submitted by O.P we found the vehicle bearing No.OD-17-2210 (2209) is trailer driven tractor one is also obtained goods carriage permit vide (46 (i)(iii) OF THE ORISSA MOTOR VEHICLE RULES ,1993) issued by State/Regional Transport Authority, Odisha ,Cuttack, on dt.29.11.2012 against Permit No.GC/PP/17/336/12 with date of expiry dt.29.11.2017. So it is a commercial vehicle, which needs driving license of transport endorsement/ authorization by the competent authority.
12. On the other, it is further noticed, at the material time of accident on dt.28.02.2013,the vehicle was driven by one named Uddhaba Dharua, retained driving license No.OR-0320110071447 which is invalid license the extract copy from licensing Authority, Bolangir speaks the license has been issued with a “LIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE TRACTOR NT” w.e.f 20.06.2011 rather which requires transport authorization. Thus the driver does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor vehicle Rules,1989, which is disqualification to drive specified vehicle.
13. Further we also observed, the notification as produced below.
“In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (4) of section 41 of the motor vehicles act, 1998 (5( of 1988) and in super-session of the notification of the Govt. of India in the erstwhile ministry of surface transport number No.S.O.451(e), dated the 19th June 1992, the central Govt. hereby specifies the types of motor vehicles as mentioned in columns 1 and 2 of the table below for the purpose of said sub. Section (4).
Transport Vehicle Non-Transport Vehicle.
(i) Motor cycle with side car for carrying (i) Motor cycle with or without side car for
Goods . personal use.
(ii) Motor cycle with trailor to carry goods. (ii)Mopeds and motorized cycles Engine
25 cc.
(iii)……… (iii)Invalid carriage.
(iv)Luxury cub. (iv)...............
(v)Three wheeled vehicles for transport (v)Motor car.
Of passengers/goods.
(vi)Goods carrier trucks or tankers or mail (vi)……………
Carriers (No:-N3 category).
(vii)Power tiller and tractors using public (vii)………….
Roads.
(viii)……… (ix) Agricultural Tractor & Power Tillers.
(x)Private Service vehicle…..
This notification also categorized same as commercial in nature. So in no way it can be said that the vehicle is a non- transport one.
In view of the above said discussion and statutory compulsion, the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the policy, thus it is not tenable in the eyes of the law as argued by the O.P and we abide with such view as elaborated. So on such matrix the case is no more sustained thus is herewith dismissed.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016.
[S.Rath] (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. Member. PRESIDENT.
