AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE do not find any ground for condoning the delay of 30 days in presenting this appeal, FA. SR. No. 2403/1998 by the 1st opposite party in OP No. 207/1997 questioning the order of the Adilabad District Forum in that O.P. dated 26.6.1998. The complainant is the 1st respondent and the 2nd opposite party is the 2nd respondent in this application for condoning the delay. The order of the District Forum was despatched on 26.6.1998 under Dis. No. 575/98.
IN the affidavit of Mr. K. Krishna, Administrative Officer of the petitioner/appellant INsurance Company, the reason for the delay is explained as follows : "I respectfully submit that we have been advised that in view of the Memorandum of Grounds filed in the above FA, we have good chances of success in the appeal and we will not be required to pay any compensation towards the award. We understand that the complainant is instituting proceedings in pursuance of the order in the O.P. and, therefore, it is essential that the proceedings are stayed, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above FA. I respectfully submit that there is a delay of 30 days in filing this appeal which is neither deliberate wanton nor due to any negligence but due to procedural delays in a Government Co. like ours and in view of the delay in transit in forwarding the papers from Adilabad to Secunderabad Regional Office, to obtain legal opinion whether there were good grounds of appeal etc. and thereafter obtaining necessary approvals in filing this appeal."
We do not find that any sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 30 days in presenting the appeal. In the result, FA. IA. No. 869/1998 is dismissed and FA. SR. No. 2403/1998 is rejected.
We perused the record and the order of the Adilabad District Forum in O.P. No. 207/1997 to satisfy ourselves about its legality and regularity. We find from the record that the licence (Ex. A-4) issued to the complainant specifically mentioned "Autorickshaw only" and also as follows : "The licence to drive other than transport vehicle is valid from .................................. transport vehicle is valid from 21.6.1996 to 23.8.2016 From the above it is clear that the first two lines related to "other than transport vehicle"
and the blank was not filled. This establishes that the licence granted did not relate to ''other than transport vehicle''. The bottom two lines related to transport vehicle and the period for which the licence was valid was shown by filling the blank : 21.6.1996 to 23.8.2016. Thus the driving licence given to the complainant was for transport vehicle and it was valid from 21.6.1996 to 23.8.2016. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the licence granted to the complainant was contrary to law. But that is a different matter and we cannot enquire into that question. A licence granted cannot be declared as invalid by the Tribunals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was not the case of the Insurance Company that any action was taken against the complainant for driving a transport vehicle or his autorickshaw with that licence. The complainant''s authorickshaw was covered by a valid permit obtained by him (Ex. A-5). Copy of the FIR (Ex. A-1) for the accident was also filed. There was nothing to show that police initiated action against the complainant for driving his autorickshaw without a valid licence. The Insurance Company did not file any document or examine any witness.
IN the circumstances we are satisfied that the order of the District Forum holding that the repudiation was bad and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the INsurance Company, is not vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by us in exercise of our suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appeals dismissed.