West Bengal

Siliguri

88/S/2012

SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF MANAGER, - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 88/S/2012.                  DATED : 23.03.2015.                 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBER                : SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                      : SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV,  

  S/O Ramjanam Yadav,

  Registered owner of the Vehicle No.WB-73C-0698,

  residing at Khopalasi, Matigara, P.S.- Matigara,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, represented by his Constituted

  Attorney Smt. Urmila Devi, W/O Sri Jang

  Bahadur Prasad, resident of Ramkrishna Para,

  Matigara Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Matigara,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

O.Ps.           1.                 : CHIEF MANAGER,

                                                              Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.

                                                              Ltd., Head Office, 2^nd Floor, Dare House,

                                                              2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 600 001.

               

                                    2.                                 : BRANCH MANAGER,

                                                              Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.

                                                              Ltd., Branch Office Vishal Mega Mart,

                                                              Burdwan Road, Siliguri, P.O.- Siliguri,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling – 734 001.

                        

                                    3.                                 : RAJAT LAKHOTIA,

                                                              Authorized Agent, Code No.201102478988,  

                                                              C/O Cholamandalam MS General Insurance 

                                                              Co. Ltd., Branch Office Vishal Mega Mart,

                                                              Burdwan Road, Siliguri, P.O.- Siliguri,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling – 734 001.

                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Sudama Mahato, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OPs                                  : Dipika Bhansali, Advocate.

 

J U D G E M E N T

The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is a constituted attorney of the registered owner on the strength of Power of

 

Contd.......P/2

-:2:-

 

Attorney executed by the registered owner on 23.05.2011.  The petitioner is a lady and her husband and son help her in her dealing.  The said vehicle got insured with OP No.2 and 1 by the agent OP No.3 on 16.05.2012.  The complainant got the cover note of the said policy no.8817776.  The value of the said vehicle was assessed Rs.3,40,000/-, and the premium was Rs.16,669/-.  Latter on policy certificate was issued for the period from 17.05.2012 to 16.05.2013. 

Some disputes arose between this complainant and the OP No.3 over price of vehicle.  There was altercation among them.  Complainant informed the same to the OP No.2 on 24.05.2012.  The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 28.05.2012 at Matigara.  Claim was registered being no. 966604, dated 29.05.2012.  The vehicle was inspected by OP No.2 on 29.05.2012, and on 04.06.2012 the complainant sent the driving licence and authorization letter, but the OP No.2 refused to take the same on ground that the driving licence was not sent as submitted by the petitioner on the date of inspection.  After two months, the complainant got a letter from OP No.1 dated 23.07.2012 addressed to the registered owner being claim no.3379056054 where from the complainant came to know that the OP No.1 has not considered the claim of the petitioner on account of not holding of an effective driving licence by the driver at the time of accident. 

Thus it is alleged that OP No.2 & 3 have in collusion did not consider the prayer of the complainant.  As such, complainant suffered loss.  The complainant incurred expenses of Rs.7,488/-, Rs.4,500/- Rs.30,000/- totalling Rs.65,903/- for repairing the damaged vehicle.  The petitioner has also suffered personal monitory loss of Rs.60,000/- for the last two months.  Accordingly for redressal this petition has been presented before this Forum, with a prayer for realization of amount laid down in para 18 (a), (b), (c) & (d).   

The OPs have filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations laid down in their complaint.  The positive objection

Contd.......P/3

-:3:-

 

of the OPs is that the driver at the time of the accident, was not holding an effective valid driving licence.  So, it has been a serious breach of Driver’s clause contained in the policy apart from violation of M.V. Act.  The complainant has not acted as per terms & conditions of the policy.  The OP No.2 made requests to complainant on several times, but the complainant did not hand over the driving licence.  On investigation, the OPs came to know that at the time of the accident, the driver was not holding effective driving licence.  So, the claim is baseless and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

The complainant has filed the following documents :

1.       Xerox copy of Registration certificate of vehicle.

2.       Xerox copy of cover note policy.

3.       Xerox copy of policy certificate.

4.       Xerox copy of driving licence.

5.       Xerox copy of authorization letter.

6.       Xerox copy of notice dated 06.06.2012.

7.       Xerox copy of reply against claim petition.

8-11. Xerox copy of money receipt of bill.

 

The complainant has also filed evidence in chief. 

The OPs have also filed evidence in chief.

Both sides have filed their questionnaire. 

Now we have to decide whether OPs have caused negligence or deficiency in service to the complainant. 

 

Decision with reason

 

We have gone through the complaint and written version very carefully in the record.  The main point of dispute raised by the complainant is that OP No.1 & 2 did not take driving licence of the driver produced by the complainant.  It is stated by the complainant that the OPs did not take the driving licence of the complainant on the plea that

Contd.......P/4

-:4:-

 

 

the said driver was not in the site of the vehicle on the date when the accident took place.

It is complainant’s case that Harikrishna Sahani was driver and to that effect the OP No.2 has seized the driving licence and authorization letter in favour of Harikrishna Sahani. 

It is admitted position that the vehicle was insured when the accident took place.  But complainant states that Harikrishna Sahani was driver.

But it is not clear from the statement of both sides and documents filed by both sides who was driver at the time of accident, if the accident took place at all.  There was no police diary or extraneous document to help this Forum to make conclusion regarding truthfulness of complainant’s statement.

Accordingly, material on record failed to convince this Forum to hold that claim petition has succeeded.   

So, from the above document filed by the complainant, it is yet uncertain from the document filed by the complainant who was driving vehicle, if it is taken to be proved that Harikrishna Sahani was driving the vehicle.  Then from the licence of Harikrishna Sahani, it appears that the licence was granted for light motor vehicles.  From record, it appears that it was goods vehicle. The complainant failed to prove that said driver was conducting vehicle with a valid licence.  So, the case is not proved.

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.88/S/2012 is dismissed on contest, but without cost.                 

Copies of the judgment be given to the parties free of cost. 

 

 

                             -Member-                         -President-