JUDGMENT

Dr. D.P. Choudhury, President.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of passenger bus bearing Registration No. OR-07-V-3873 has purchased insurance policy from the OP covering risk from 8.10.2010 to 7.10.2011 on payment of due premium. It is alleged inter alia that on 1.7.2011 at about 4.05 PM the vehicle met accident near village Jilundi Main Road. Thereafter, matter was reported to the OP. Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss. Thereafter, subsequent surveyor was appointed to assess the loss who assessed the loss at Rs.1,17,000/-. Finally, OP repudiated the claim on 1.3.2012 stating that the vehicle has no route permit. So being aggrieved with such deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

4. OP appeared and filed written version stating that they have received the information and also deputed two surveyors. The second surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,17,000/-. Complainant has already agreed to receive such amount as assessed by the second surveyor but the vehicle has no any route permit at the relevant time for which they have repudiated the claim. Thus, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

5. After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

“xxx xxx xxx

In the result, the complaint of the complainant is ordered to be dismissed due to devoid of any merit. However, in the peculiar fact and circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own cost. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by refusing to allow the complaint without any justification. According to him the insurance policy was valid during the relevant time but the route permit was valid from 10.7.2010 to 7.7.2011. The route permit although was not there at the relevant time but the learned District Forum has not considered whether the accident was due to lack of route permit. Since the vehicle was registered, the necessity of route permit is redundant. Moreover, route permit was about to be obtained on the same day but the accident took place. He submitted that the absence of route permit cannot be nexus to the accident. Hence, the learned District Forum has erred in law by not applying judicial mind to the fact of the case. According to him when policy is valid, absence of route permit cannot be a ground to reject the claim, particularly, when the surveyor has already deputed to make survey of the damage of the vehicle. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8. Complainant is required to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9. It is admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant has got valid insurance policy and during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident at Jilundi. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has route permit issued on 1.7.11 at 6 PM to 7.7.2011. It is admitted fact that the route permit was not there at the relevant time but it is made available just after two hours of accident.

10. In the instant case even if route permit is not there but the complainant must have booked the route permit, which was issued on the same day. Apart from this, absence of route permit is not the cause of the accident occurred because there is no such material produced by the OP to show that due to absence of route permit, the accident took place. Had the OP any other intention to reject the claim, they would not have sent the surveyor.

11. Be that as