UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. B UGANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tata Sumo vehicle of respondent registered as Taxi Cab was insured with petitioner Corporation for a period of one year commencing from 11.11 .2000. It so happened that on 12.10.2001, while vehicle was taken by one Mr R.C. Prasad on hire, it met with an accident, colliding with tanker-lorry. The accident was so severe that while six occupants died, rest two survived persons sustained injuries. Vehicle being insured with Insurance Corporation, petitioner company was informed for assessment of damages. A Surveyor was deputed who examined damaged vehicle, assessed damages and submitted report. Respondent too, obtained quotation for repair of vehicle and his estimate for repairs was Rs. 5,74,500. Submitting quotation for repairs to Insurance Company, damages were claimed. However, Insurance Company repudiated claim which persuaded respondent to approach District Forum, for appropriate relief. Two-fold contentions were raised on behalf of petitioner Corporation, firstly that dispute being not a consumer dispute and secondly that when vehicle in question met with an accident, fitness certificate had already elapsed. Carriage of passengers on transport vehicle beyond sanctioned capacity was also taken to be a defence for dismissal of complaint. District Forum, analyzing evidence and taking into consideration pleadings of parties, negating contentions raised on behalf of petitioner Corporation, accepted claim, directing petitioner Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 to respondent along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim. Litigation cost of Rs. 4,000 was also awarded by District Forum. All these contentions which were also raised in Appeal did not find favour with State Commission and appeal was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) Contentions raised before Fora below are sought to be reiterated before us holding that since vehicle in question was a taxi-cab and thus a transport vehicle, it cannot ply on public road without satisfying relevant provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988, as for permit, fitness and registration of vehicle. State Commission did not find flaw with complaint, holding respondent to be a consumer assigning sound reasonings. While referring to provision of Section 56(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988 which are in following terms, learned Counsel for petitioner company would state that since vehicle was plying on a public road without current certificate of fitness, by legal fiction, vehicle be deemed to be without valid registration.

(3.) True it is that significance of holding a valid fitness certificate to ply vehicle on public road has been reiterated in provisions of Section 84 of M.V. Act, 1988 which requires that vehicle permit and valid certificate of fitness under Section 56 of M.V. Act is required to be maintained so as to comply with requirements of this Act and rules made thereunder. We are not oblivious of provisions of Section 66 also which enjoins that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit use of vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods save in accordance with conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a regional or state transport authority or any prescribed authority.