- (1.) THE complainant's case is that his tourist car met with an accident on 20.6.1995 and suffered extensive damage and thereupon the complainant made a claim to the opposite party. But the opposite party repudiated the claim and, therefore, the present complaint was laid.
(2.) THE opposite party contended that the complaint was not maintainable and that it was barred by limitation and that the Court at Srivilliputhur had no jurisdiction and that on the date of the accident there was no fitness certificate for the vehicle. Therefore, rightly the claim was repudiated and thus there is no deficiency in service.
(3.) THE lower Forum has passed a very sketchy order accepting the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,508/ - along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/ - as cost. Hence this appeal. It is not necessary for us to go into all the facts canvassed in the complaint. Suffice it is to say that it is admitted by the parties that on the date of the accident, there was no fitness certificate at all relating to the vehicle. The importance of fitness certificate cannot be undermined. In fact Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: "The following shall be conditions of every permit - Section 84(a) - That the vehicle to which the permit relates to carry valid certificate of fitness issued under Section 56 and is all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder:" Therefore, fitness certificate is an absolute necessity as we see from a reading of Section 84 and Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly on the date of the accident there was no fitness certificate for the vehicle. In such circumstances, we have to see whether the repudiation by the opposite party was justified. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held in a decision AEROFLOT SOVIET AIRLINES v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD, 1998 1 CPJ 133, that in the absence of certificate of fitness the bus should not have been brought on public road and the repudiation is, therefore, valid. The complainant was running the vehicle only as a tourist car as admitted by him. Therefore, under the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of the vehicle shall not use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in a public place except in accordance with the permit granted under Section 84 of the Act. It is needless to point out that the conditions laid down in Section 84 would thus get attracted to every permit and, therefore, every vehicle which is put on road or in a public place must necessarily carry a certificate of fitness issued under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act especially Sections 39, 53, 56 and 84 would emphasise the fact that the certificate of fitness issued by the competent authority is a must and in the absence of such certificate the vehicle cannot be deemed to be a vehicle duly registered and having a valid permit and, therefore, is barred from being put to use on a public road. The fact remains that under the policy conditions it is mentioned that the vehicle has to be used only for carriage of passengers in accordance with the permit issued within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, if the conditions laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act is contravened, then it follows that the repudiation is valid. This Commission has also taken the view in =A.P. No. 81/99 in a case arising between M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Raghunath, 2004 1 CPJ 589 decided on 30.12.2003 that if a vehicle is used in breach of any fundamental conditions or the breach is so fundamental as it goes to the root of the contract between the parties, then the repudiation would be in order. Here, a reading of the Motor Vehicles Act would show that the Act prohibits the use of the vehicle in a public place without a fitness certificate. Here in this case the vehicle was used a tourist taxi in a public place and it met with an accident and on the date of the accident there was no valid fitness certificate at all. Therefore, the user here is not only an irregular one, but an illegal one as well. The user is against the provisions of the Act as well as the spirit of the contract between the parties. Therefore, in such circumstances, the complainant having taken a hazard knowing well that he sought not to have put the vehicle on road without the fitness certificate, has thus taken a chance and it is too late in the day for him now to turn around and say that the repudiation is improper. The accident had occurred while the vehicle was put to use in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in breach of conditions of permit and, therefore, the complainant cannot succeed in maintaining the claim much less to make a profit out of his own error of omissions and Commissions. To allow the complaint would amount to recognizing the user of the vehicle without a fitness certificate which would run against the spirit of the Act. The complainant cannot be permitted to harvest from his own default. Hence, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint deserves to be rejected.;