AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in this Order are referred to according to their position in the complaint filed before the District FORum.
THIS Appeal is by the Opposite Party (for short, "OP") challenging the Order of the District Forum directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation to the complainant with interest. We may state briefly the necessary facts of the case. The complainant is the owner of the rig unit bearing No.KA-11/7860. The said vehicle was insured with the OP for the period from 8.10.2003 to 7.10.2004. The vehicle in question fell into a ditch on 6.10.2004 on the left side of the road since it was hit by another vehicle from behind and due to short-circuit the vehicle caught fire, as a result of which the vehicle was completely damaged. The accepted estimated market value of the vehicle by the OP is Rs. 15,00,000. After the accident, the Fire Brigade Authorities were informed and they in turn extinguished the fire. But by that time the rig Unit and most of the part of the vehicle was burnt. Thereafter, the complainant intimated the act of accident to the OP. The OP immediately appointed a Surveyor to investigate and to submit a report. But the Surveyor has not assessed any loss. Thereafter, the OP appointed another Surveyor to investigate and to give a report. But it is not known what is the report given by the second Surveyor. Again the OP appointed one more Investigator by name Sri Shamsundar to assess the loss. The said Investigator inspected the vehicle and submitted a report. According to him, there was no such fire accident and that the fire accident appears to be a self created with a view to claim damages. But, according to him, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 74,072.20. But, ultimately, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no Fitness Certificate in respect of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Aggrieved by this repudiation, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.
The District Forum considering the evidence adduced by both the parties has directed the OP to pay the accepted market value of the vehicle to the complainant with interest.
THE learned Counsel appearing for the OP submitted that the vehicle in question is a "Public Transport Vehicle" and, therefore, in the absence of Fitness Certificate as on the date of the accident, the District Forum was not right in directing the OP to pay the compensation. In reply to this submission, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the vehicle in question does not require any Fitness Certificate and, therefore, the OP is not right in repudiating the claim on the ground that the vehicle did not have Fitness Certificate as on the date of the accident.
IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is useful to refer to certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "Act"). Section 56(1) of the Act reads thus: "56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles-(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in Sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder."
Section 39 reads thus: "39. Necessity for registration-No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner."
From a reading of Section 56 of the Act it is clear that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness. Under Section 39 of the Act, no person shall drive any vehicle in any public place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter IV of the Act. If a transport vehicle does not possess a Certificate of Fitness, automatically the registration stands cancelled under Section 39 of the Act. "Transport Vehicle" is defined under Section 2(47) of the Act, which reads thus: "Transport Vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle."
"Public Service Vehicle" is defined under Section 2(35) of the Act, which reads thus: "Any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage."
The expression "goods carriage" is defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, which reads thus: "Goods carriage means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods."
"Educational INstitution Bus" is defined under Section 2(11) which reads thus: "An omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities."
"Private Service Vehicle" is defined under Section 2(33) which reads thus: "A motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purpose."
From a reading of the above said Definitions, it is clear that in order to be a "Transport Vehicle", it should be a public service vehicle or a goods carriage or an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. The vehicle in question as per the R.C. Book is registered as a "Rig" with effect from 26.11.1996. Rig is not a Transport Vehicle since it is neither a public service vehicle nor goods carriage nor an educational institution bus nor a private service vehicle as defined under the provisions of the Act referred to above. Under Section 56 of the Act, Fitness Certificate is required only in respect of a Transport Vehicle and not in respect of any other type of vehicles. Therefore, there was no justification for the OP to repudiate the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the vehicle in question did not have a Fitness Certificate on the date of the accident. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 on the basis of "Insured Declared Value" since the District Forum is of the view that the vehicle in question cannot be repaired. The OP had appointed the third Investigator/Surveyor to assess the loss. It is in evidence that six tyres, disk, cabin, engine part, compressor, batteries and borewell machinery of the vehicle were damaged in the accident. The Surveyor no doubt has filed Affidavit and also produced certain CDs before the District Forum. The said CDs were also examined and considered by the District Forum. The Motor Vehicle Inspector in his report has stated that the vehicle in question cannot be repaired. The complainant has also produced certain estimates before the District Forum, according to which the amount that could be spent in order to get the vehicle repaired would be much more than the Insured''s Declared Value. Taking all these facts into consideration, as the vehicle is beyond repairable condition, the District Forum is right in awarding compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 relying on the OP''s Declared value treating as "Total Loss" subject to surrendering of the salvage. Hence, we find that the impugned Order does not call for any interference by this Commission.
IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The Appeal is dismissed. (2) Parties to bear their own costs.
Appeal dismissed.