The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of insurance policy terms and the entitlement for compensation on a non-standard basis.

ORDER :

Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President-This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.4.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G) (henceforth called “District Forum”), in Complaint Case No. 128/2013. By the impugned order, learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) against the appellant (O.P.) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay Rs. 55,000 towards repairing charges of the vehicle, Rs. 4,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000 toward cost of litigation.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint case before the District Forum are that the respondent (complainant) is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.13-C-9583 and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 26.3.2012 to 25.3.2013 and the insurance policy No. is 193400/31/2012/7723. On 18.3.2013 in the night at about 10.30 p.m. the driver of tractor bearing registration No. 13/D-9933 dashed the vehicle bearing No. CG.13/C-9583 near village Chote Hardi at National Highway No. 257 when it was coming to Raigarh from Sarangarh resulting which engine, body and other parts were damaged. Report was lodged on 19.3.2013 at Sarangarh Police Station and the appellant (O.P.) was also intimated regarding the incident. The respondent (complainant) submitted the documents relating to the vehicle i.e. F.I.R., Final Report, R.C. Book, insurance certificate, driving licence, etc. before the appellant (O.P.) and demanded compensation but the appellant (O.P.) has not given the compensation. The respondent (complainant) sent legal notice through his Advocate and demanded compensation, but despite it, compensation was not given, therefore, the complaint was filed by the respondent (complainant) praying for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.

3. The appellant (O.P.) filed its reply before the District Forum and specifically denied the occurrence of the incident and pleaded that the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 26.3.2012 to 25.3.2013. The respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 and is also not entitled for getting Rs. 25,000 per month towards compensation. The vehicle of the respondent was insured under Private Car Package Policy but the respondent (complainant) has obtained an order from Registering Officer, Raigarh on 23.7.2012 to use the vehicle as transport vehicle, which is entered in the R.C. Book. The respondent (complainant) has not intimated regarding use of the vehicle as transport vehicle and also has not obtained insurance policy regarding transport vehicle. Driver of the vehicle Shri Kishore Kumar Chouhan was having driving licence for motorcycle with gear L.M.V. He was not having licence for driving transport vehicle. Thus, the driver Shri Kishore Kumar Chouhan was not authorized for driving vehicle No. CG.13/C-9583 on the date of incident i.e. on 18.3.2013. The complainant has not provided the documents regarding repairing of the vehicle to the appellant (O.P.) and also not filed any document in the complaint. The appellant (O.P.) has not committed any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. In support of the complaint, the respondent (complainant) filed his own affidavit. The complainant (respondent) has filed documents as per list. Document 1 is R.C. Book dated 4.4.2012, document 2 is driving licence, document 3 Motor Insurance Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule Private Car Package Policy-Zone B, document 4 is letter sent by the respondent (complainant) to the Branch Manager of the appellant (O.P.) dated 17.9.2013, document 5 is registered notice dated 1.10.2013 sent by Mr. B.L. Behra, Advocate on behalf of the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.), document 6 is letter dated 27.7.2013