Heard learned counsel on behalf of both parties.

         2. This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission,Khurda, Bhubaneswar. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.

  3.        The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-BF-2047(TATA SUMO) has purchased policy for covering period from 12-05-2011 to 11-05-2011 on payment of due consideration. It is alleged interalia that on 17-05-2010 the vehicle met accident. Therefore claim was made. But the OP stated that the driving license of driver &  permit of the vehicle were  invalid at the time of accident. Further stated that the claim was closed as no claim. Hence, finding no other alternative, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint has been filed by the complainant.                        

4.           The O.P filed written version stating that  after claim has received they found the vehicle has no route permit at the time of accident and also stated that the vehicle was registered as private but  used for commercial purpose .Further, no claim can be settled by the OP for a private vehicle when the policy issued for commercial category . As such, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.   After hearing both parties Learned District forum has passed following orders as follows:

        “In the result, the complaint is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP being devoid of merit. No cost”.

6.Learned counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that the Learned District Forum without considering the material fact passed impugned order and submitted to set aside the impugned order. He submitted that route permit is not necessary in such accident case and Learned District Forum should have analyzed the case properly.

 7.     Counsel on behalf of respondent submitted that there was no route permit and rightly impugned order was passed.

8.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for parties, Perused DFR and impugned order.

9.       It is only to decide whether the vehicle was route permit or not.  The respondent relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh & Another Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd & others 17-05-2018 to support the repudiation.

  10. In view of aforesaid decision, rout permit of vehicle is necessary for settlement of the claim. In the instant case there is no route permit of vehicle at the time of accident as per material on record. Therefore, repudiation of the claim is justified. The Impugned Order is confirmed. Appeal stands dismissed. No cost. 

                                              11.    Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the                                                                  confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this                                                                            commission.

                                                      DFR be sent back forthwith.