The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the terms and conditions of insurance policies, including valid fitness certificates and route permits for insured vehicles.

ORDER :

Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral)

Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.1.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents-United India Insurance Company Limited; MCC Power Project Private Limited, Head Office, Shimla and MCC Power Project Private Limited at site Bandala, seeking indemnification for the loss of insured tractor from United India Insurance Company Limited and rent amounting to Rs.2,07,000/- from other two respondents, has been dismissed.

2. Appellant owned a tractor, which he insured with respondent No.1-United India Insurance Company Limited in the sum of Rs.1,20,000/-, for the period from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010. Vehicle was insured as a transport vehicle. In the registration certificate also, the vehicle was categorized as a transport vehicle. Vehicle had been hired by other two respondents on monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- for use at their construction site.

3. On 3.2.2010, when the policy was in force, vehicle rolled down from the site, where it was deployed by respondents No.2 & 3 and fell into a gorge. Tractor broke into pieces and because of depth and narrowness of gorge, it could not be retrieved. Intimation of accident was given to respondent No.1. Spot surveyor deputed by the respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited visited the spot and reported that vehicle had broken into pieces and fell into a gorge and it was not easy to reach the site, where it had scattered. Thereafter, investigator was deputed, who confirmed that the vehicle had met with an accident. Loss Assessor had reported that it was a case of total loss.

4. Respondent No.1, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time, when accident took place, vehicle was being used, without there being a route permit and also there was no valid fitness certificate in respect thereof.

5. Appellant then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against respondent No.1 as also respondents No.2 & 3 alleging that respondents No.2 & 3 had not paid the hire charges rent for twenty-seven months and he claimed a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- on account of arrears of hire charges from respondents No.2 & 3. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, he claimed the insurance money, besides seeking compensation and litigation expenses.

6. Respondents No.2 & 3 did not put in appearance before the learned District Forum. So, they were proceeded against ex parte.

7. Respondent No.1 contested the complaint and pleaded that claim of the appellant had rightly been repudiated because fitness certificate of the vehicle had expired on 24.06.2009 and there was no route permit for using the tractor as a transport vehicle.

8. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has concluded that there is no relationship of consumer and provider of service between the appellant and respondents No.2 & 3. As regards the claim against respondent No.1, learned District Forum has held that vehicle had not been certified to be fit beyond 24.06.2009 and also there being no route permit for its use as a transport vehicle, respondent No.1 was justified in repudiating the claim.

9. Appellant has assailed the order of learned District Forum by means of present appeal.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

11. Appellant cannot be said to be a consumer qua respondents No.2 & 3 for the simple reason that relationship of a consumer and service provider does not exist between the appellant and said two respondents. Claim of the appellant against respondents No.2 & 3 is for recovery of hire charges of tractor. Remedy of the appellant, therefore, lies in filing civil suit for recovery of money.

12. So far as the claim against respondent No.1 is concerned, admittedly fitness certificate of the vehicle had expired on 24.06.2009 and also there was no route permit.