West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/13/162

Md. Safaruddin Mia, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Manager, HDFC ERGO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharya

27 Jun 2017

ORDER

Dr. Soumen Sikder,   Member

The complaint filed by Md. Safaruddin Mia, in short, is that he had a vehicle name and style as “Sumo Victa”. This vehicle was insured under HDFC ERGO Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Durgapur for the period 17.03.2012 to 16.03.2013. The vehicle met an accident on 25.01.2013 and was severally damaged. The complainant immediately informed the police and Insurance Co. about the accident.

The complainant brought the vehicle before Tiwari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Dumka for repair. As per instruction of the O.P the complainant submitted claim form duly filled up along with all relevant documents including repairing cost estimate to settle the claim. O.P did not settle the claim. On 06.06.2013 they repudiated the same. The complainant could not repair the vehicle due to paucity of fund and for that the vehicle is lying at the garage for which the complainant bears parking charges month after month.

Being aggrieved the complainant has come to the Forum for proper reliefs praying for direction to the O.Ps for payment of insurance claim of the damaged vehicle, interest @ 15% p.a. on insurance claim and others.

Ld. Advocate on behalf of O.P No.1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing written version. The O.Ps stated in W.V that the case is not maintainable either on facts or in law. The complainant is not a consumer under the O.Ps as per Sec. 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. The complainant took private car package policy on his vehicle from the O.P Branch office. But at the relevant point of accident the vehicle was used for hire and reward and the driver had no valid license at that time. It was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. So, the claim was repudiated.

Both parties have filed certain Xerox copies of documents and evidence in chief on affidavit.

They have filed written argument.

Upon pleading of the parties the following points are to be considered for discussion.

POINTS

1. Whether the complainant is not a consumer or not?
2. Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
3. Whether the O.Ps have deficiency in service or not?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point No.1:: The complainant purchased a vehicle name and style ‘Sumo Victa’. He took an insurance policy being No. 2311200064992801000 on his vehicle from O.P No.2. The policy was valid for the period of 17.03.2012 to 16.03.2013. So, the O.Ps are service provider to the complainant and the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.

Point No.2:: On 25.01.2013 the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant met an accident and severally damaged. The accident was happened during policy period. The complainant informed the O.Ps of the accident immediately and lodged FIR at Police Station. Later he filed the claim form. But the O.Ps repudiated the claim on 18.06.2013. The cause of action arose on and from 18.06.2013 and the complainant filed the case on 12.12.2013 i.e. within the statutory period of two years.

            The O.P carries on business all over India by opening branches at most of the district town. They have a branch at Bolpur in the Dist. of Birbhum, i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. So, the case is maintainable either in facts or in law.

Point No.3:: Admittedly the vehicle being No. WB38Y 7697 was insured under the O.P No.2 of private car package policy No. 2311200064992801000, valid from 17.03.2012 to 16.03.2013. The said vehicle met an accident on 25.01.2013. There is no dispute on the point of informing and filing the claim form in due time. But the O.P repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was running on hire and reward basis at the relevant time of accident and the driver had no valid license at that time. The O.P also mentioned in the repudiation letter that the complainant did not file repairing bill.

1. Fist point is whether the vehicle was running on hired and reward basis on the relevant time of accident.

The copy of FIR and FRT filed by the complainant do not show any word that reveals the passengers were transporting on hire basis. The complainant has claimed that the 7passangers of the said vehicle at the time of accident were relatives and friends of the driver who were going by the vehicle with prior permission of the owner. The O.Ps have filed certain documents including copy of plaint of MAC case No. 95/2013 and three copies of deposition of the passengers who were inside the vehicle at the time of accident of the said vehicle. These depositions are related to MAC case. In the plaint of the petitioners

Reba Sinha and Swapan Singh in MAC case have mentioned in para-18 that “…. The driver of offending vehicle was the family friend of the victim as well as the owner was well acquainted with father of the victim and for that reason the victim requested the driver of the offending vehicle to lift her upto Suri SP More…. The driver agreed to lift her upto Suri S.P More. There was no hire or reward relationship between the victim and the owner and driver, and the victim was travelling by offending vehicle without any fare.”

Swapan Kr. Singh also said in cross examination that “I know the owner of the offending TATA Sumo namely Md. Safaruddin Mia since before the accident of my daughter. …. Not a fact my daughter was travelling in the TATA Sumo by giving fare.”

Nirmal Ghosh one of the witness also said in cross examination that, “the driver did not take any money from the said passengers of the offending vehicle. .. not a fact we were travelling in the offending vehicle by paying fare to the driver of the vehicle … not a fact other passengers were also travelling in the said offending vehicle on payment of fare.”

From the above evidence filed by the O.P it is clear that the vehicle in question did not carry hired passengers.

2. The O.P raised the question of valid driving license of the driver Ranjit Dolui at the time of accident of the said vehicle.

The driver Ranjit Dolui said on evidence in chief on affidavit that he had valid driving license being No. WB54287. The O.Ps have filed a document issued by RTO Suri, Birbhum. It shows the details particulars of driving license No WB54-054287. It was issued in the name of Uttam Dom. The O.Ps have filed the Xerox copies of driving license which was filed by the complainant to Surveyor of the O.Ps at the time of loss assessment. It was verified by one Shayam Narayan Jha, the Surveyor/Loss Assessor appointed by the O.Ps. This Xerox copy of driving license shows the license No. WB54-054287 in the name of Ranjit Dolui, S/o S. Dolui of Sukna, Charicha, Md. Bazar, Birbhum, date of issue 28.10.2010 and valid upto 27.10.2030.

The complainant also submitted a Xerox copy of driving license being license No. WB54-054287 in the name of Ranjit Dolui. The two documents filed in respect of driving license of Mr. Ranjit Dolui are same except the signature of issuing authority. Surprisingly it is noticed that the signature of issuing authority on two documents are different from each other.

The RTO has been summoned for justifying the originality of the said driving license. The RTO sent his Upper Division Clerk with authorization letter and a details particulars of driving license. The UD Clerk Provat Karmakar filed the said details particulars of driving license dated 20.07.2016 under the seal and signature of the licensing authority. The said authority stated that on verification of office record observed and noted that driving license No. WB 54-054287 belongs to Uttam Dom S/o Mongal Dom of Vill. Soluka, P.O. Makdamnagar, P.S. Md. Bazar, Dist. Birbhum, date of issue of license was 30.09.2010 and valid upto 29.09.2030.

From these three documents it is clear that driver Ranjit Dolui has no valid license at the time of accident. Therefore, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The O.P has no deficiency in service for repudiation of claim of the complainant.

Point No.4:: As the O.P has no deficiency in service the complainant cannot get any relief as prayed for.

            So, the case fails.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 162/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.