Order No.  7  dt.  23/07/2018

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a partnership firm carrying on business of transportation of cars. The o.p. is insurance company. The complainant took out comprehensive motor policy for commercial vehicle for the period 11/07/2015 to 10/07/2016 for their vehicle no. NL01-G-8995 trailer car carrier. While the said vehicle was plying on the road at around 5.30 A.M. near Nawabgunj, U.P. met with an accident and the said vehicle got damaged. The said fact was informed to the police station being F.I.R. No. 27 Dated 27/02/2016. The said fact was intimated to o.p. on 03/06/2016. The damaged vehicle was shifted to the authorized service centre of Tata Motors and the repairing cost was estimated at Rs.2,77,936/-. The complainant informed the said fact to o.p. and a surveyor of o.p. visited the said service centre and carried out survey work and assessed the loss. The complainant thereafter was informed by o.p. that the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driving license issued in booklet form after 30/10/2009 is not genuine and accordingly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. It was further alleged that the driving license was issued to the driver on 21/05/2010 by District Transport Officer, Nagaland stating that the driving license was valid till 2016. The complainant thereafter sent legal notice, but no step was taken by o.p. for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to pay the expenses incurred for repairing of the said vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,77,936/- as well as compensation and litigation cost. 

            In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. did not contest  the case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.

            The complainant in support of his contention filed some documents including the policy document as well as F.I.R. lodged at the police station after the said incident. The complainant also filed the documents to show that he had to incur the expenses of Rs.2,77,936/- for repairing of the said vehicle. The complainant in the petition of complaint stated that as to how the incident occurred as well as filed the documentary evidence in support of his contention. The o.p. repudiated the claim for the complainant with the allegation that the license issued was not valid, but from the materials on record it appears that the said license was issued by District Transport Officer, Nagaland. The notification as claimed by o.p. came into operation after issuing of the license in favour of the driver of the said vehicle.

            Since the materials placed by the complainant has not been challenged and the complainant filed all the documents in support of his contention, therefore, we have no other alternative but to allow the claim of the component. In order to corroborate the expenses incurred by him for repairing of the said vehicle filed some documents. It also appears that the policy was valid at the relevant point of time. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief.         Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No. 71/2018 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,77,936/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.