AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (the ''district Forum'') in Complaint No. 962005. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 8. 9. 2006.
IT is stated by the complainant that Passenger Bus bearing registration number CG-15-A2125, was insured with the O. P. comprehensively. The said bus met with an accident on 27. 5. 2004 during the currency of the insurance policy. FIR was lodged with the police and the insurer was also informed of the accident. Claim for damage to the vehicle amounting to Rs. 45,050 was also lodged with the O. P.-insurer and the repairs were carried out on the oral assurance of the insurer. The loss was also got assessed by the insurer at Rs. 38,000. However, the claim was not paid even after several oral and written requests. An amount of Rs. 46,050 along with interest and compensation for inconvenience is prayed for. Complainant has submitted copies of the FIR, registration certificate, driving licence, insurance, fitness certificate and letters addressed to the insurer in support.
It is submitted on behalf of the O. P. that spot survey of the incident was got done by the insurer and a subsequent survey as well as the investigation was also made. It was found that the bus was being driven by Mohd. Shamim who did not have a valid and effective driving licence for driving a Public Service Vehicle (PSV) at the time of accident. It is also stated that the bus was carrying passengers in excess of the permitted number.
LEARNED Counsel for the appellant asailing the impugned order submitted that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid license on the date of accident and the claim is wrongly repudiated by the O. P. It was submitted that as per the photo copy of the letter No. 200/abr/02 issued by the RTO, Ambikapur and filed by complainant, the driver was authorised to drive PSV as per endorsement dated 15. 4. 2006. Learned Counsel for respondent/o. P. challenging the said letter referred to another photo copy of the letter (filed by O. P.) bearing identical number and issued by the RTO pointed out that the date of endorsement regarding authorization to drive PSV was 14. 6. 2006, i. e. , after the date of accident. He defended the impugned order and reiterated the grounds of repudiation. Question for consideration is the date on which the driver of the ill-fated bus was authorised to drive a Public Service Vehicle (PSV ).
AS per the complainant''s version the endorsement was made on 15. 4. 2004, prior to the date of accident while as per the respondent''s version it was made on 15. 6. 2004. A copy of letter No. 2200/abr/02 purportedly issued by the RTO, Ambikapur is filed on behalf of the appellant. As per the said letter the licence for driving PSV was endorsed on 15. 4. 2004, i. e. , prior to the date of accident, 27. 5. 2004. However, on going through the copy of a similar letter bearing the same number issued by RTO, Ambikapur and filed by O. P. shows the date of endorsement as 15. 6. 2004, i. e. , after the date of accident. This is also mentioned by the investigator Anoop Mehta in his report dated 3. 5. 2004. Strangely the survey report submitted by the surveyor A. P. Singh mentions the date of endorsement as 15. 4. 2004, prior to the date of accident. In view of the conflicting reports of the surveyors and the difference in the relevant date in the copies of the same document filed by the appellant and the respondent the original driving licence was got produced. Perusal of the said licence number 2200/abr/2002 we are convinced that the endorsement regarding the authorization to drive PSV has been clearly manipulated. The date of endorsement has been changed from 15. 6. 2004 to 15. 4. 2004 with the obvious intention of obtaining damages.
THUS we are convinced that the driver of the bus Mohd. Shamim did not have a valid and effective licence for driving a PSV at the time of accident. This is an obvious instance of an attempt to obtain false claim by manipulation of documents and producing fake photo copies of official letters. It is also noted that the surveyor AP Singh has also mentioned the wrong date endorsement of licence. Bona fides and the conduct of the surveyor in producing such a report also need to be enquired into.
IN view of the aforesaid facts and discussion the impugned order deserves to be affirmed. The appeal being devoid of force is dismissed. Appellant shall bear his own cost and is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) only by way of cost of litigation to the O. P. /respondent appeal dismissed.