IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC /01/2016.
Date of Filing: 05.01.2016. Date of Final Order: 30.10.2017.
Complainant: Sukchand Ali Mandal, S/O Samiruddin Mandal, Vill. Jotsidam, P.O. Sadhikhandiar,
P.S. Jalangi, Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742305.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, Berhampore Branch, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
37/A, R. N. Tagore Road, P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ….................... President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee …………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, President.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of insured policy amount of Rs.212002/- towards repairing cost of damaged insured vehicles with interest @8% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and compensation of Rs.1.5 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- .
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant’s truck having insured policy for assured value of Rs.7.5 lakh for the period from 18.4.13 to 17.4.14 met with an accident on 2.4.14 at Pamia More under P.S. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad resulting in severe damage whose repairing cost was Rs.2, 12,002/- and FIR was lodged and Nabagram P.S. case No. 145/14 dt. 02.4.14 was started. The complainant informed the incident to OP immediately and submitted claim application claiming repairing charges. The OP repudiated the claim illegally on the ground mentioned in the letter dt. 22.8.14 particularly that the accident did not take place for mechanical failure and the offending vehicle being driven without valid Driving License. The impugned repudiation is illegal and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and then the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP-Insurance Company, in brief, is that the OP has denied all the allegation of the complaint categorically. The OP has no deficiency in service at all. The driver of the alleged truck died due to the accident, who has no driving license at all and surrendered a false person who was not driving the alleged truck at all at the material time of alleged accident. The investigator appointed by the OP investigated the actual event as per FIR at the spot and the maker of FIR and other witnesses stated that the driver of the truck was severally injured by the accident and shifted to Berhampore New General Hospital and died there. The original driver had no driving license. The complainant submitted the Driving License of one Jahangir Alam to the Police and the Police seized the said driving lincese from the owner of Truck on 10.04.14 at 17.55 hrs through the alleged accident was occurred on 02.04.14. In the claim application the cause of the accident has been started by the complainant as failure of break of the truck. Where, final report shows that the accident took place due to other than mechanical failure. The complainant with ulterior motive for wrongful gain suppressing material facts has filed the instant complaint and for that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether the case is barred by law of estoppels, waiver and acquisance.
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for payment of insured policy amount of Rs.212002/- towards repairing cost of damaged insured vehicle with interest @8% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and compensation of Rs.1.5 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.5000.
The complainant’s main case is that the complainant’s insured Truck was damaged seriously on an accident on 2.4.14 and for that claimed Rs.212002/- towards cost of repair but the OP illegally repudiated on the ground that the driver of that truck had no valid License at the relevant time and cause of accident being deferred as to other than mechanical failure. Where the complainant has filed a valid D/L of the driver of that truck at the relevant time and for that the complaint has filed the complaint for getting the claim.
On the other hand the OP’s case is that the complainant has suppressed the material fact that actually driver died on the spot who had no Driving License and suppressing the same falsely represented the driver Jahangir whose Driving License is for medium vehicle. In the F.I.R it is mentioned that driver sustained bleeding injury and in claim form it is mentioned that Sumanta died who is Khalasi (helper) and there is no whisper of any other injured person except Sumanto.
In this case both complainant and OP-Insurance Company have adduced their respective evidence on affidavit and have also filed relevant document in support of their respective case.
The complainant’s case is mainly for recovery of the repairing cost of the damaged insured truck due to accident.
In this case both parties have adduced evidence on-affidavit along with relevant documents.
The complainant has filed Driving License if driver Jahangir and the same clearly show as Driving License for medium vehicle.
Admittedly, the instant damaged vehicle is Truck and as such the same is heavy vehicle.
From the FIR it is clear that driver of the damaged Truck sustained bleeding injury.
The complainant has filed Xerox copies of several cash memos, challans , money receipts and F.I.R to justify cost of repair of the vehicle met with accident.
Now, the dispute is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim if there is violation of policy condition.
To rebut the claim of the complainant or in other words to establish their case the OP Insurance Company has filed the claim form of the complainant and the investigation report including final report of the Mechanical Expert with the report that the accident took place other than mechanical failure, where the complainant’s case is that the accident took place due to Brake-fail.
Also, there is no iota of evidence adduced by the complainant challenging the above investigation report including the mechanical expert’s final report, annexure ‘B’ filed by the OP.
Further, the ld. Lawyer for the OP has referred two reported decisions in 2005(1) TACJ page 254 (NC) in the case in between National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Manoharlal Batra and in IV(2012) C.P.J 68 (N.C) in case of Amal Sai & Anr. Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd .
In both the cases the Hon’ble National Commission has held that that the repudiation of accident claim by the Insurance Company on the ground of invalid license is justified.
Considering the above discussions as a whole including the decision of Hon’ble National Commission holding repudiation justified for invalid driving license, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and as such the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
That the Consumer Complaint No. 01/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
