NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SASHIDHAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited represented through its Office -in -charge, Orissa Legal Cell, Cantonment Road, Cuttack assailing the order of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar passed on 28.11.2006 in CD Case No. 54 of 2006. By the impugned order, the District Forum, on the complaint filed by claimant -respondent Sashidhar Mohapatra against this appellant and the Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Bhubaneswar, has directed the appellant to reimburse a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant and also directed for payment of Rs. 2,000 towards litigation cost within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order, failing which the entire amount of Rs. 52,000 would carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the date of payment.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. l to this appeal as the complainant filed the aforesaid consumer complaint before the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar stating that he is a small bus operator and had purchased the bus bearing registration number OR -02Y -7135 availing finance of Rs. 73,700 from the Tata Motor Finance (opposite party No. 2 to the complaint petition) on 5.9.2003 with flat interest at the rate of 7% per annum on condition to repay the loan in 46 instalments at the rate of Rs. 21,220 as EMI. Purchase of the bus was made on hire purchase agreement. Opposite party No. 2 had deposited Rs. 20,930 with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. after collecting the same from the complainant and certificate of insurance for passenger carrying commercial vehicle was handed over to the complainant, which was valid from 5.9.2003 to 4.9.2004 vide Annexure -1. Subsequently, however, the vehicle was insured with opposite party No. l, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and, in the insurance policy, the type of vehicle was changed from passenger carrier to goods carrier (other than three wheeler public carrier) fixing the premium at Rs. 14,918, and on receipt of the said sum from the complainant, certificate of insurance was issued by the appellant vide Annexure -2. While the vehicle was plying, it met with an accident on 8.8.2005, when the policy was valid. When the complainant advanced his claim for the damages caused to the vehicle, it was repudiated by the Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant -opposite party No. 1, on the ground that the vehicle was not insured as a passenger carrying vehicle but as a goods carrying vehicle and also on the ground that the driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. After repudiation of the claim, the complainant -respondent filed the consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service with a prayer for award of the claim amount, compensation and cost.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. l, the Insurance Company, appeared and filed written version. Their case is that the vehicle was insured as a goods carrying public carrier, but in fact it was a passenger carrying one. Hence, as insurance was not made for the vehicle as a passenger carrying one, the complainant is not entitled to any reimbursement for the damages caused to the vehicle.