In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 60 / 2011.
1) Sri Raj Kumar Mondal,
Vill.- Dihichatua, P.O. Sankarpur, Purba Medinipur. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) National Insurance Company Limited,
3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071.
2) The Senior Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-XV,
National Insurance Building, 1st Floor,
India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 1 3 Dated 2 2 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 .
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Raj Kumar Mondal against the o.ps. National Insurance Co. Ltd. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant insured his Taka make model 207 pick up van with the o.ps. under policy no.156100/31/07/6300013603. The car was vehicle was being driven by the complainant himself having driving license no.WB 202002176000 issued on 12.6.02.
During the validity period of the policy from 25.10.07 to 24.10.08 the complainant’s vehicle was stolen and fled away by miscreants on 2.11.07 at Khakurdah Market, Midnapore at about 12-30 p.m. threatening the complainant on knife point. Policy case no.143/07 dt.24.11.07 u/s 382 of IPC started at Daspur P.S., Midnapore. All relevant documents in respect of the vehicle i.e. registration book, key driving license, etc. were kept in the vehicle at the time of theft. Claim was lodged with o.p. no.2 on 27.1.08. The claim bearing no.150100/31/10/63/90000339 was repudiated on 1.6.10 by o.p. no.2 on the ground that ‘Driving license was not in order at the material time of accident”. Hence the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have perused the evidence, BNA and other papers adduced by the parties and have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. counsels of the parties.
O.ps. have categorically denied and disputed all the material facts made out in the petition of complaint and have prayed for dismissal of the case.
It reveals from the record that after receiving the insurance claim the o.p. no.2 appointed surveyor and surveyor asked the complainant to produce vehicle particulars / duplicate RC Book, Key of the vehicle. As he papers were within the vehicle the same could not be produced by the complainant but subsequently on 12.3.10 the papers were sent to the o.ps. by the Lexus Motors Ltd. which financed the vehicle. The surveyor raised different question on the issue. FRT was also sent.
Be that as it may the repudiation of the claim was made by the insured only on the ground that the driving license of he owner-cum-driver was not in order i.e. the complainant possessed license for driving LMV. But the copy of the license produced by the complainant reveals that it is for LMV on 12.6.02 and for Trans on 12.6.02. On the otherhand, the complainant in annex-D confessed that he pressed LMV class of license.
We have gone through the judgment cited upon by the parties but the same are not exactly similar to the instant case. It is admitted that owner-cum-driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the time of theft. We feel that there is no co-relation / nexus between the driving license and the theft. Had the complainant drove the vehicle with valid license then whether the theft could be avoided is a pertinent question. On the otherhand, the o.p. has not produced any evidence of RTO as to the validity of the license.
It is an admitted position that complainant had valid insurance policy and the vehicle was stolen and initially he could not produce the documents of the vehicle since those were kept in the vehicle and subsequently those documents were sent to financer to o.ps. It is also admitted position that police filed FRT and the vehicle could not be recovered and consequentially it is proved that the incident narrated by complainant is correct so far as FRT is concerned. Now the contention of o.ps. is that complainant did not have valid license and on this aspect the settle principle of law is that whether there was valid or invalid license and this position should not be considered as justified repudiation of the claim and on this court repudiation of the claim by o.ps. is not sustainable in law and we are of the view that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in repudiating the claim of complainant being a service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the o.ps. with cost. O.ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand) only (on non standard basis) to complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of realization and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
____Sd-_____ _____Sd-______ _______Sd-_______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
