West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/6/2016

Sumanta Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Officer, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

06 May 2016

ORDER

 

                                                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.06/2016

                                                       

                                                                         Sri Sumanta Bera…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

                                 Divisional Officer,United India Insurance Co. Ltd,                                                                                                         Medinipur Divisional Office…………....Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Mahanlal Das Kanungo, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -06/05/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Forum and he purchased one truck bearing no.WB/33A/4916 for his self employment by taking financial loan from the Sundaram Finance Ltd, of Kharagpur Branch.  He got his said truck insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company vide policy no.0350003114PLO6746113 covering the period from 29/11/2014 to 28/11/2015.  On 24/08/2015, the said truck met with an accident near Fatepur under P.S. Kotwali, Uttar Pradesh and as a result of such accident, there was gross damage of the truck.  After the accident, the complainant informed the matter to the opposite party- Insurance Company and submitted claim form bearing claim No. 0350003115C050038001/1  along with all relevant papers and estimate of damage.  Opposite party- Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor for enquiry and spot

                                                                                                     Contd………………..P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

survey and for assessing the loss and cost of damage of the vehicle.  After inspection by the surveyor, the complainant repaired his damaged vehicle and he incurred an expenses near about Rs.1,60,000/- for such repairing which includes labour charge.  After such repairing, the complainant deposited all bills and vouchers before the opposite party.  Being requested by the opposite party, the complainant also submitted the driving licence along with other papers of driving licence and the consent note about labour charge as assessed by the Surveyor.  After submitting all documents and consent note, the opposite party sent a letter on 29/12/2015 informing the complainant that the licence was not valid and the claim of the complainant has been treated as “No claim”.  It is stated by the complainant that  the opposite party repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant which is illegal and improper and there is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Insurance Company.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as net loss along with interest and to pay litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

                  The opposite party-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written objection.

                    Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party- Insurance Company that at the material time of accident on 24/08/2015, the driver of  the vehicle had no valid driving licence. After verification from the licencing authority, Bankura, it was found that the driving licence no.WB-6720000036734 in the name of driver Sri Barindra Goswami was not valid at the relevant time of accident.  As per Central Motor Vehicle Act,  Rule no.3, the said claim is being treated as “no claim”  and as such the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that at the relevant time of accident, driving licence was not valid and the same has been already informed to the complainant by registered post.  It is stated by the O.P. that  said repudiation of the claim is legal and proper and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Opposite party therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Point for decision

                                                               Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

          At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.

Contd………………..P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

                   Fact remains admitted that the complainant’s vehicle bearing no. WB/33A/4916 was duly insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company vide policy no.0350003114P106746113 covering the period from 29/11/2014 to 28/11/2015.  It is not disputed that on 24/08/2015, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and as a result of such accident, the vehicle was grossly damaged.  Admittedly, after the date of accident, the complainant intimated the occurrence  to the opposite party-Insurance Company and submitted a claim form along with all relevant papers and the opposite party-Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor for enquiry and spot survey and for assessing loss and cost of damage of the said vehicle.  According to the complainant, after such inspection by the Surveyor of the opposite party, he repaired his damaged vehicle and incurred an expense near about Rs.1,60,000/- for such repairing and after such repairing, the complainant deposited all bills and vouchers before the opposite party.  Admittedly, vide letter dated 29/12/2015, the opposite party-Insurance Company informed the complainant that on verification of the driving licence of the driver at the material time of accident was not valid and therefore the claim of the complainant was treated as “No claim”.  In support of their said case, the opposite party-Insurance Company filed an extract of driving licence, issued by the Licencing Authority, Bankura and relying on the said document, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party submitted at the time of hearing of argument that it would be found from this document that on the date of accident, the driving license was not valid covering the period from 27/04/2015 to 1/09/2015.  As against this, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the driving license of the driver namely Sri Barindra Goswami of the complainant was valid till 26/04/2015 but the driver of the vehicle failed to renew his driving licence and subsequently on 10/09/2015, his said driving licence was renewed.  In support of such contention, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant filed two driving licence wherefrom we find that the driving licence of Sri Barindra Goswami was at first valid up to 26/04/2015 and subsequently the said driving licence was renewed and it was valid up to 01/09/2018.  It this appears that admittedly on the date of accident, the driving licence of the driver  of the complainant was not renewed but subsequently it was renewed.  Ld Lawyer for the complainant referred a ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench reported in 1999 ACJ 450.  From the said ruling, we find that it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that expiry of period of licence and the omission of  driver to get the licence renewed cannot be a breach of condition of policy. In view of that and since the earlier licence of the driver concerned was subsequently renewed covering the date of accident, so it cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle was not duly licenced to drive the vehicle in question.  In view of that, the opposite party –Insurance Company was not

Contd………………..P/4

 

 

 

( 4 )

justified in rejecting the claim of Insurance of the complainant on the ground that the driver concerned had no valid licence.  Complainant has filed copies of documents showing that he has incurred a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- for repairing of his damaged vehicle and we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the said amount under the policy in question.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                             that the complaint case no.06/2016  is allowed on contest with cost against the opposite party-Insurance Company. Op-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as repairing cost of the vehicle to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint within  a month from this date of order.  Opposite party do also pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order.

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

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                                    Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                       Sd/-

                              President                                   Member                                President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur