SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in short is that he is an unemployed person and for his livelihood he purchased a truck for business in the locality. He purchased a GVC public policy package insurance policy being No. 0317003115P114366406 dated 26.02.2016 in connection with the vehicle Registration No. WB 121B-4244 and the policy was valid up to 25.02.2017 The RTO Purba Medinipur issued All India Permit to the said vehicle . The complainant had been paying road tax and said was valid till 10.03.2017. On 01.09.2016 the said vehicle was loaded with Fortune Refine Oil from Adani Will Mar Ltd. Factory of Haldia to the destination of Purnia at Bihar. At 7.45 on 02.09.2016 the vehicle was in accident at Sadaipur under PS Sadaipur and the vehicle had been damaged badly. On 03.09.2016 the complainant lodged a complaint before the Sadipur P.S and it was registered as GDE No. 100 dated 03.09.2016. Complainant shifted his vehicle at Maity Motor’s Body Garage at Deulti, under under PS Kolaghat, Purba Medinipur for repairing and maintenance of the body and engine of the damaged vehicle. On 23.12.2016 the Garage authority gave a proposal or assessment bill for repairing work and other parts were purchased from outside. On 05.09.16 the complainant filed Motor Claim Form for damage in the office of the OP and said claim was registered as No. 317003116C050179001/1 for an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/-.The office of the OP issued receipt copy. On 29.12.2016 the OP appointed surveyor and after physical verification of the damaged car the surveyor he issued ‘’acceptance note’ of the claimant. Suddenly on 17.03.2017 the OP sent a letter vide Memo No. Ref No. 031700.MOT.Odd, RPDL/743/2016-2017 informing the claimant that his claim shall not be considered as the DL was not valid from 18.07.2016 to 16.11.2016. Subsequently on personal visit to the office of the OP the OP stated that the claim would be paid in due time. Thereafter the claimant sent a letter on 23.05.2017 in reply to the letter of the OP dated 17.03.17 but no result. On 12.08.17 again the complainant met with the officials of the OP over the issue when the OP refused to pay the compensation. On 23.05.2017 the claimant informed the OP that the driver of the said vehicle had applied for renewal of his DL on 24.08.2017 before the RTO , Purba Medinipur. But the OP did not care to take the matter into consideration.
Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint case with a prayer for direction upon the OP to pass necessary order for awarding the claimed amount and other reliefs.
The OP United India Insurance Co. Ltd filed written version and contested the claim petition; they denied all the material allegations and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The case of the OP is that the case is not maintainable under different provisions of law. The claimant has not filed necessary documents to satisfy his claim. The terms of the insurance is “the person driving holds an effective and valid driving license.” It is the case of the complainant that one Muneswar Kr. Giri was driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident, but on verification it was found that his DL was not valid at that time. The OP claims that as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was violated; the claimant is not entitled to any compensation for the accident of his vehicle.
The points require discussion are whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.
We have perused the entire materials on record, including the complaint petition, the written version and documents filed by both the parties , the affidavit in-chief, questioners and reply thereto filed by the parties and have given our anxious consideration to the argument of Ld. Advocate for both parties.
It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant admitted purchase of his truck for the purpose of his livelihood. The RTO of Purba Medinipur has issued All India Permit of the said vehicle upon valid consideration as per MV Act and Rules. According to the complainant on 01.09.2016 the said vehicle was loaded with Fortune Refine Oil from Adani Will Mar Ltd. Factory of Haldia to the destination of Purnia at Bihar. At 7.45 on 02.09.2016 the vehicle was in accident at Sadaipur under PS Sadaipur and the vehicle had been damaged badly. On 03.09.2016 the complainant lodged a complaint before the Sadipur P.S and it was registered as GDE No. 100 dated 03.09.2016 dated 03.09.2016.
It appears from the record that the complainant did not file any copy of FIR or GDE to show that the complainant actually lodged the complaint on 03.09.16at Sadaipur PS reporting the alleged accident, as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the complaint.
The complainant has been cross-examined by the O P on this point and the complainant did not give any reply of the cross-examination. It has been questioned to the complainant “Whether he submitted any proof of occurrence in question but the complainant did not reply to the question. Besides that the OP also submitted that the Driving License of the alleged driver was not valid from 18.07.16 to 16.11.16 and hence, as the alleged incident took place on 02.09.16, the DL of the driver concerned was not valid on the date of the alleged accident.
Ld advocate for the OP submitted that general exception of the policy stated as under- “ Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving license to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder, at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license provided also that a person holding an effective and valid learner’s license to drive the category of the vehicle insured hereunder may also drive the vehicle when not used for transport of passengers at the time of accident and that the person satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 .
It is not controverted that the license of the driver Muneswar Kumar Giri was not valid at the time of accident.
It was held in a decision of Hon’ble National Commission that wherever insured himself is claimant, the insurance Co. is not liable to reimburse him for damage caused to vehicle if it is found that the driver of vehicle did not possess valid license at the time the vehicle met with the accident. Another decision of Hon’ble Supreme court held that – Onus primarily lies on the owner of the vehicle to establish that the driver was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and he had valid driving license. Then only the onus shifts to the insurer to repudiate the same. If the driver is not authorized or does not have valid license , the insurer will not be liable to pay compensation. In another decision, the Hon’ble National Commission held that once initial onus has been discharged by the Insurance Co. it is the duty of the complainant to prove whether the driver of vehicle had a valid and effective DL.
The complainant has filed a copy of the Driving License No. WB 23/24 issued by the MV Department, Barrakpore which shows that the license was issued on 12.11.1998 and it was valid up to 17.07.2016. So, it is clear that on the date of alleged accident, though it is not proved by filing any scrap of paper, then also there was no valid license of the driver who was allegedly driving the said vehicle on the alleged date of accident of the vehicle.
In view of our above discussion we hold that the OP rightly repudiated the clam of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this complaint case.
Both the points are answered accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/569 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.
Parties would bear their respective cost.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
