Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/13/2016

Pravash Chandra Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajkishor Bhuyan & P.L. Barik

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 13 OF 2016         

                       Pravash Chandra Behera, aged about 40 years,

                       S/o- Bhaktabandhu Behera,

                       Vill/P.O/P.S/Via- Joda,

                       Dist- Keonjhar…………………………………………………………Complainant

                                              Vrs.

                        Branch Manager,

                        National Insurance Company Ltd.

                        Barbil Branch, Main Road, Barbil,

                        Dist- Keonjhar……………………………………………………….Op. Party

 

PRESENT: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

                  SMT. B. GIRI, MEMBER (W)

                  Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Raj Kishor Bhuyan & P.L. Barik

                  Advocate for OP: Sri N.G. Das

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date of Filing: 19.3.2016                                                                                                                                                   Date of Order: 10.2.2017

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. Succinctly put, the complainant owned a Tipper bearing Regd. No.OR-09N-9397 and insured vide Policy No. 163301/31/15/6300001299, covering the period 19.7.2015 to 18.7.2016.

2. The complainant submits, the vehicle met accident on dt.31.7.2015. At the material time of accident the driver was Duryodhan Barik who holds an effective Driving License, being valid up to dt.3.2.2018.

3. It is stated, the matter lodged with Police station and intimated to the insurer with claim settlement. In replacement the insured has expended to the tune of Rs.1,83,370/-, the surveyor and loss assessor approved the replacement in the designated workshop and deposited the bills with the Insurer for settlement.  

4. The petitioner also stated, the Insurance in deferring days repudiate the claim and close the file as “No Claim” on the ground that the Driving License of Duryodhan Barik being a fake one as per thorough verification.

5. So it is made complained, the Insurer repudiated the claim, various principle law as declared in different times, the act of OP is unfavourable, discretionary and contrary to settled principle in settlement of own damage claim. Being aggrieved, institute the case praying relief to direct in paying repairing cost, compensation and legal cost that deems just & proper. Placed reliance on certificate of Insurance, Smart copy of D/L, Certificate of Fitness, Permit, Estimate, Repudiation dt.4.2.2016, R.C. Copy in photo copies and affidavit.                    

6. In pursuance notice, the OP appeared and filed the version not disputing the Certificate of Insurance issued and tenure. But contending the claims is excessive, arbitrary and not liable for payment. Besides the case is barred of limitation, no cause of action and not maintainable as the vehicle is a commercial one, so not tenable.

7. The OP stated, the forum has no jurisdiction, complainant failed to take reasonable care as the Driver Duryodhan Barik bearing D/L No. OR 091 98900 13015 issued by Licensing Authority, Keonjhar although the validity was effective but previous verification, it is ascertained, the D/L No. 388/89 issued L.A. Allahabad was not genuine and rather fake, so when an original D/L was fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent defect, thus it attracts rejection, in its subsequent renewal, thereby the OP rightly repudiated the claim on the grounds of violation of the term and condition of the policy.

8. Prayed, under the above circumstance, the petition is liable to be dismissed.            

9. Heard the learned counsels at each’s end and perused the documents on record.

10. On first instance, No dispute persists on the issuance and validity of Certificate of Insurance.                                       Having earning to livelihood and availing the service, the complainant is a consumer against the paid premium as consideration. The OP repudiated the claim on dt.4.2.2016 and the cause of action ensues on the same day so we find the case does not suffer barred of limitation nor cause of action nor jurisdiction, thus well ventilated for maintainable.

11. Post maintainability, the core question raised with the “Driving license” and its acceptability within the provision of law.                 

12. Perusal of the relevant document says Duryodhan Barik has issued with D/L No. OR 091 98900 13015 under L.A.R.T.A. Kendujhar is valid up to 3.2.2018 and it is argued by the complainant, at the material time of accident i.e. on dated 31.7.2015, the D/L was effective.

13. On the contrary, on verification, it is found, the D/L as submitted is renewal one and the Corresponds original D/L No. 388/89 issued L.A. Allahabad does not sustained genuinity, issuance as advance is fake. 

14. We go through extensive submission made in written argument and respective citations plead in reliance.

15. The complainant advocate placed reliance on Pepsu Road Transport Corp. VS National Insurance Company.- (2013) 56 OCR (SC)-1055-

(ii) DM, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manjulata Jena & Others.

      We also gone through rival authoritative contentions as made reliance.

Found the authority as made reliance is neither supportative noza fit case in application in view of the present case scenario rather the petitioner should adduce competent certified copy issued by licensing authority Allahabad, which can salvage the possibility in entitled to claim settlement. The reliance is not convincing in right way to us. Even if not iota of truth impels that the owner is at intentional breach of policy condition.  

16. Although the findings relates to “Fake driving license” in breach of conditions, the Insurance company cannot absolved from liability on the back drop Section. 149 (2) (a) which is invoked in third party accident claims not in own damage claim. So we do not find a fit case to peruse.  

17. The Own damage claim is controverted by three nos. of citation given by the counsel of OPs.

(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Laxmi Narayan Dhut 2007ACJ 721 (sc)

(ii)  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Davinder Singh 2008 ACJ 1 (SC)

(iii) National India Insurance Co. Ltd VS Harbhajan Lal 2010 ACJ 709 (SC)       

The ratio laid down in the (i) and (ii) would not be applicable as the case is different and relates to third party claims but the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Harabhajan is made applicable, we hold the same finding as to the present case in hand. In the present case, the onus lies with the OPs to prove. The Insurer has produced the document that the original was fake. The non-genuinety is no more rebutted by any substantive evidence by the complainant. We also inclined to hold when the original is forged one, recurring renewals will not cure the inherent defect, thus fake is established.    

In our view, this being the position, we do not subscribe the ground of the complainant. The case does not stand to any merit, thereby the case is herewith dismissed.          

          Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

          File be consigned to record room.

          Pronounced, 10^th February 2017.

                                                                                                                                           

            I agree                                                                                     

       (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                             (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

       Member (W)                                                                                                              President                                                                                                                                          

    DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                 DCDRF, Keonjhar

                                                         

                                                                                         Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                       (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                                       (President)       

                                                                                               DCDRF, Keonjhar