M.B. Shah, President—In this case the contention of the opposite party Insurance Company is that the complainant is not entitled to reimbursement of loss/damage caused to his vehicle, from the Insurance Company as the vehicle was plied without ‘fitness certificate’, which is in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon a decision of this Commission. Against that the complainant has relied on some of the judgments of the Apex Court.

2. In order to avoid the confusion on the question involved in this case, by order dated 10.1.2007 it was directed that the matter be placed before the larger Bench.

Facts:

3 .This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 24.3.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, in A.P. No. 539 of 2000, allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company. The State Commission observed that on the date of the accident there was no fitness certificate relating to the vehicle and, therefore, there was a breach of Section 84(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act and set aside the order passed by the District Forum in O.P. No.113 of 1997 decided by the District Forum on 20.6.2004.

4. T