C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/86
COMPLAINANT : Bipul Bhusan Das,
S/o Bidhu Bhusan Das
Vill.Dighapara,
P.O. Barajagulia,
P.S. Haringhata,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kalyani Branch Office,
A-9/9 (S) 2nd Floor, Kalyani,
Dist. Nadia, Pin 741235
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 29th December, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a TATA sumo which was insured with the OP Insurance Co. commencing from 06.12.08 to 05.12.09 with a sum assured of accident benefit and others. It is his further case that on 27.01.09 the said vehicle met an accident with a bi-cycle and others which was plying in a rush and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle was seriously damaged causing financial loss to this complainant. Immediately the matter of accident was intimated to Jagatdal P.S. which started a case under section 279, 338, 427 I.P.C. being No. 44/09 dtd. 27.01.09. Thereafter this petitioner sent information to the OP with a request to pay the amount which was spent by him for repair of the said vehicle, but no reply was received from the OP. Again he sent a letter, but to no effect. But finally, on 03.02.11 he received a letter from the OP, inter alia, in which it was stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence to drive the car, which is not at all correct, because the driver had a valid licence at that time and the car was used by the complainant for his livelihood. He spent Rs. 1,15,267/- for repair of the vehicle. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
Notice was duly served upon the OP, but he did not turn up to contest this case by filing any written version. So the case is taken up for exparte hearing.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On the side of the complainant several documents are filed, but no oral evidence is adduced by him. From the annexed documents No. ‘Annexure – 1, it is available that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP Insurance Co. for the period from 06.12.08 to 05.12.09 (midnight) and the coverage was in respect of any accident as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ‘Annexure – 2(1)’ shows that it is duly registered in the name of the complainant vide the registration certificate. From ‘Annexure – 3’ it is available that he filed an application before the OP intimating about the accident on 28.01.09 which was received by the OP on 29.01.09 with a request to issue claim form in his favour. From ‘Annexure – 4’ it is available that Jagaddal P.S. case No. 44 dtd. 27.01.09 was started for the accident. ‘Annexure – 5’ shows that the vehicle was seized by the P.S. which was delivered to the complainant as per order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore vide order dtd. 30.01.09. ‘Annexure – 8, 9, 10 & 11’ show that the vehicle was repaired by Joy Guru Break Down Service and R.M. Spares. ‘Annexure – 12’ speaks about the labour charge for repair of the vehicle by B.B. Automobile. ‘Annexure – 14’ shows that Gurbhajan Motors examined the vehicle after accident and submitted a report to Jagaddal P.S., North 24 Parganas stating the condition of the vehicle. ‘Annexure – 15’ is the repudiation letter issued by the OP to the complainant on 03.02.11 in which it is stated that the driver of the vehicle one Mahabir Pal submitted a false driving licence which was revealed as per verification conducted by him and on that allegation the claim was repudiated by the OP. It is already discussed that the OP has not filed any written version in this case to contest the same. On the other hand, from the document filed by the complainant it is available on record that admittedly this vehicle was duly registered in the name of the complainant and it was insured with the OP with the condition of accidental insurance. Complainant duly filed claim form along with other documents to this OP who did not consider his claim, rather he repudiated the claim on the ground that driver of the vehicle had no valid licence at the time of accident. But to that extent no document is filed by the OP, nor any evidence is adduced. On the other hand, the complainant has cited a ruling from III (2011) CPJ page 413 (NC), where the Hon’ble State Commission has said “Insurance – Accident – Surveyor appointed – Driving licence validity – Claim repudiated – Forum allowed complaint – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Contention, driver of insured truck did not have a genuine driving licence – Not accepted – No credible evidence produced to prove original licence was fake – No affidavit or letter of District Transport Officer produced, hence affidavit of Divisional Manager of petitioners has little evidentiary value – Forum order upheld.” On a careful perusal of the above cited ruling of the Hon’ble State Commission we do hold that it is applicable in the instant case also, as no document is filed by the OP to prove that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence at the time of accident. On the other hand, on the side of the complainant a copy of the driving licence of the driver is filed vide ‘Annexure – 7’ which shows that his driving licence is valid up to 08.01.2012 and it was issued by licensing authority Hooghly.
In view of the above discussion and considering the facts of this case along with the annexed documents filed by the complainant our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove his case. So he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/86 be and the same is decreed against the OP exparte. The complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 1,15, 267/- as the cost of the repair of the vehicle plus Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment caused to him along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-, i.e., in total Rs. 1,21,267/- which the OP is directed to make payment to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
