DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

             This appeal is directed against order dated 18.09.2014 in Case No. 2082/2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Burdwan, (For short, District Forum). By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case in part. Being aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the same, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 thereof have preferred this appeal.

            The case of the Complainant is that he purchased the schedule vehicle by down payment and rest being financed by OP No. 3 vide Tractor Loan bearing no. 80486806, which was insured with the OP Nos. 1 & 2 Insurance Company.  On 15.04.2013, while it was working in a village, namely, Shilakhali under Bhagabanpur PS, it met with an accident by falling in a ditch, and it was informed to the Bhagabanpur PS on 17.04.2013. It was informed to the OP  Insurance Company through telephone, who  issued claim form and the Complainant lodged claim  with the OP Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 83,492/-. But, on 23.07.2013, he received a letter from the OP Insurance Company that  due to non-sending  of Driving Licence of one Sahajahan  Mallick, they have been unable to settle the claim . It also claimed  the name of the actual driver had been Rasel Sk. As the OP Insurance Company neither allowed the claim nor repudiated it, the same gives rise to this case.

             On the other hand, the case of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 is that a Miscellaneous Carrying Comprehensive Insurance Policy bearing no. 231620039965600000 was issued in favour of the Complainant subject to terms & conditions stipulated therein.  It was intimated by the Complainant that at the material time of the accident, the vehicle was driven by one Sahajahan Mallik. However, in the  claim form, for the first time, it was mentioned  by the  Complainant that at the material  time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Rasel Sk. with DL No. WB-51-37533. On query by the Surveyor by a letter dated 10.06.2013 asking for the DL of Sahajahan Mallik, the Complainant by a letter dated 10.07.2013 stated that he was absent and his son by mistake stated the name of the driver as Sahajahan Mallik. The Complainant failed to produce the DL of Sahajahan Mallik despite reminder, which document was very essential for further processing of the claim. The Complainant intentionally suppressed the DL of Sahajahan Mallik and misrepresented that the driver was Rasel Sk. Accordingly, the claim of the Complainant was  repudiated by a letter dated 23.07.2013 on the ground of non-submission of document.  The conduct of the Complainant  clearly shows that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by Sahajahan Mallik who had no valid and effective DL. As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. So, the case be dismissed.

             It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of irregularity and/or illegality so as to make an interference in the impugned order.

Decision with reasons

              Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the whole dispute is regarding the Driving Licence of the driver involved in the accident. While the name of Sahajahan Mallik was at first surfaced, but later on it was changed to Rasel Sk. Accordingly,  the Insurance Company issued a letter to the Complainant dated 23.07.2013 rejecting the claim of the Complainant. Further, the bill submitted by the Complainant is an estimate bill of repairing but not the actual bill of repairing. He has referred to a decision  and an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, respectively,  reported in 2008 (1) T.A.C. 717 (S.C.) and  in  Criminal Appeal No.1525/2015, and two decisions respectively, of the Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 2731/2015 [I(2016) CPJ 275 (NC)] and in RP No. 3251/2013.

              Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned order stating that the Appellants have unnecessarily harassing the Respondent  No. 1 in settling the claim. In the GD before the OC, Bhagabanpur PS, the name of the Driver was mentioned as Rasel Sk.  It was also mentioned to the Insurance Company that wrongly the name of Sahajahan Mallik was stated by his son, while the original driver was Rasel Sk.

              Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that it has no concern as such in the matter of the impugned order, but in regard to the compensation   as also the litigation cost  awarded of Rs.3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-  against all the OPs, which affects the Respondent No. 2.

              Claim form is the basis for consideration in the matter. There is no exclusive proof negating the claim of the Complainant that at the relevant time Rasel Sk was driving the vehicle in question. Accordingly, there is no justification in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. The impugned order stands, but the compensation and litigation cost awarded will only be against the Appellants/ OP Nos. 1 & 2.