The petitioner Md. Meer Manjar Alam filed a petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act for seeking relief.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition as well as from the evidence is that the petitioner Md. Meer Manjar Alam is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.JH20A-4852. The nature of the vehicle is Bolero LX. The vehicle was insured with the O.P. i.e Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co, Ltd from 25.03.2014 to 24.03.2015 through the local agent  of the O.P/Insurance Co. with a total sum assured of Rs.2,16,035/-.

On 01.02.2015 when the vehicle was moving on the way to Kisanganj suddenly a vehicle named XYLO coming from the opposite direction and dashed the vehicle of the complainant. As a result of which the vehicle of the complainant was badly damaged. After the said accident the complainant assessed the damage cost of the vehicle by Karmakar Automobile, Islampur and the said service center assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,83,064/- only for repairing and renovation cost of the vehicle in question. The petitioner informed the matter to the Insurance Co. verbally and thereafter on 19.02.2015 the O.P/Insurance Co. sent a letter to the complainant to submit the documents for getting the damage cost of the vehicle. The petitioner submitted all the necessary documents along with the claim form to the office of the O.P for getting the claim. On 04.03.2015 the Insurance Co. informed the complainant to give necessary explanation within 7 days as regard to the driving license of the driver. On 11.03.2015 the O.P informed the complainant that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. Thereafter, petitioner contacted the O.P for several time for getting the claim but it was in vain. The further case of the petitioner is that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle had the valid license. Due to the act of the O.P the petitioner has been suffering financial loss as well as mental pain and agony. The petitioner has claimed Rs.1,83,064/- the damage cost of the vehicle. Besides that Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost

The petition has been contested by the O.P. Insurance Co. Ltd by filing the written version denying all the material allegations leveled against O.P. contending inter alia that the petition is not maintainable in law. There is no cause of action to file this case against the O.P., the claim is barred by law of limitation. It is admitted that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company in the name of Md. Meer Manjar Alam. The definite defence case of the O.P is that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle in question had no valid license. According to the written version it is found that Md. Rasik was the driver of the offending vehicle and the driving license was issued by R.T.O., Kishanganj on 03.12.2008 and it was valid from 03.12.2008 to 12.12.2014 to drive LMV. Thereafter again it was reissued on 13.02.2015 for the period from 11.02.2015 to 12.02.2020. Whereas the vehicle met with an accident on 01.02.2015. So, at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective license. Accordingly the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any compensation as at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle.

The further defence case is that the complainant assessed the damage cost of the vehicle by Karmakar Auto Mobile, Islampur without the knowledge of the O.P and Karmakar Auto Mobile is not an authorized center of the O.P. The further defence case is that the O.P assessed the damage cost of the vehicle by the licensed surveyor who assessed the damage cost to the tune of Rs.49,320/-.  Considering such facts and circumstances the prayer of the petitioner is to be rejected.

                                                                       DECISION WITH REASONS

The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P vehemently argued that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid license. So the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any compensation. In this regard he submitted case law reported in 2014 CJ 188(N.C). By that case law the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P wants to impress upon the Forum that the driving license was renewed after 2 years and 8 months after expiry of the driving license. But in the instant case it is found that the driving license was renewed within the 30 days of the expiry of the driving license. So, the reported case has no application for the instant case.

 On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the petitioner submitted a reference reported in CPJ Vol.(3) in the year 2006 Hariyana State Commission. In the case law it is found that the accident occurred within 7 days from the expiry of driving license and the prayer for renew of the driving license took place within 30 days from the date of expiry. In that case the Insurance Co cannot avoid the liability. So the fact of the instant case is quite applicable in this case. Moreover, the Ld. Lawyer  for the petitioner also referred other case law reported in CPR Vol (4) in the year 2009, Himachal Pradesh State Commission and another case law  CPJ Vol(2) in the year 2007.

On perusal of the case law it is found that if the renew is made within 30 days the Insurance Co. cannot avoid his liability. Moreover, from the case law reported in Punjab State Commission it is found that the O.P did not establish any case that there was lack of driving skill of the driver of the vehicle in question. From the record it is found that the prayer for renewal of driving license was made within 30 days from the expiry of the driving license. So according to the case laws and on perusal of the documents it is presumed that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle had the valid and effective driving license.

Now the next point is to be considered as to the amount of damage cost. In this case the petitioner has claimed Rs.1,83,064/- on the basis of cash memo issued by Karmakar Auto Mobile where the vehicle was repaired. In this case the said memo was not proved by the petitioner with the original. Not the original has been filed. Moreover, the Karmakar Auto Mobile is not an authorized service center of the Insurance Co. On the other hand the report of the surveyor has not been proved by the O.P. Mere filing of the report is not sufficient. So, in this case it is very difficult to estimate the actual cost as because neither the petitioner nor the O.P has proved their respective documents to establish their cases. But it is fact that there was a damage as because the licensed surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.49,320/-. So, definitely there was a damage of the vehicle. Now the lack of proper documents in this case it will be just and proper to estimate the loss as mean of the claim of the petitioner along with the amount assessed by the surveyor. So the total amount comes to {(Rs.1,83,064 + 49,320/-)/ 2}=Rs.1,16,192/-. Besides that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.4,000/-. So the total amount comes to Rs.1,40,192/-.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the instant consumer complaint being No. CC - 12/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P but without any cost.  

The complainant/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.1,16,192/-as damage cost, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.4,000/- as litigation cost. The O.P/ insurance company is directed to make the payment within one month from the date of passing of this order failing which it will carry  interest at the rate of 10% per annum over the awarded amount i.e. (Rs.1,16,192/- + 20,000/- + 4,000/-)= Rs.1,40,192/- from the date of filing i.e 05.02.2016  till the recovery. In the case of failure of payment, the petitioner/ complainant is at liberty to execute the order for recovery of the amount as per provision of law.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.