NATIONAL GARAGE Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are directed against the common order dated 2.2.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'district Forum' for short) whereby the Complaint Nos.142/04, 213/2004 and 214/2004 were dismissed. The complainant has filed the aforesaid appeals. Since common questions are involved, these appeals are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In all these matters, the complainant had obtained Motor Trade Comprehensive Insurance Policy from opposite party insurer regarding the vehicle purchased from Tata Motors and on accident being taking place the complaints were filed, as the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurer. In all the three complaints the insurer had averred in the written version that the driver did not have effective valid licence on the date of accident. The complaint was filed on false premises, no report was lodged with the police, belated intimation was given to the insurer and no spot survey could be conducted. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. It was further averred that the complaint was filed through Power of Attorney holder, hence the complaint was not maintainable and the O. P. had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) Learned District Forum accepted the version of the opposite party and held that the Power of Attorney holder was not competent to file the complaint before the District Forum in view of the provisions contained in Sec.2 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act which defined the complainant. Learned District Forum held that the complainant is a registered partnership firm and the complaint was to be filed by any of the partners of the firm. But as the complaint was filed by the Manager who was a Power of Attorney holder, the complaint was not maintainable because under the Consumer Protection Act only the person who is the consumer is competent to file the complaint. It was further held by the learned District Forum that as no FIR was lodged and belated intimation was given to the insurer, it raises suspicion because the accident allegedly took place in Raipur and the office of the opposite parties is also situtated at Raipur and there is nothing to suggest why the complainant did not approach the opposite parties for conducting spot survey. All these facts raise suspicion. The question regarding allegation of opposite parties that the driver did not have valid driving licence on the relevant date was decided by the learned District Forum in favour of the complainant and it was held that the driver had valid driving licence. Learned District Forum further held that in view of the report of the investigator and tariff regulation the insurer has not committed any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant.