F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for direction upon O.P./ Insurance Company to pay of Rs.1,26,000/- as insurance claim and for compensation of Rs.1,500/- per day + Garage rent Rs 500/- per day  for unnecessary harassment and also Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.

The case of the complainant in short is that  the complainant is the owner of vehicle an ambulance, being registered WB59/8367 and insured the vehicle at Rs.1,26,000  being policy No.150701/31/13/6300004596. The vehicle met with an accident on 08.07.14 at Bagdogra, near Khanna Hotel and was badly damaged. Thereafter petitioner submitted claim before O.P/Ins. Co following all formalities. But O.P did not disburse the Insurance claim and by letter dt. 21.07.15 repudiated the claim. Therefore petitioner come up with the petition before this Forum with above mentioned prayer.  

O.Ps. appeared and contested the case by filing written version, where they categorically denied the allegations of the complainant. O.P. made a very elaborate written statement assailing the complaint. O.P admits that petitioner was the owner of the said vehicle insured under the policy.  O.p denied that petitioner placed the claim on 21.07.15. O.P stated that petitioner gave declaration through Motor Claim Form that Shri Kanai Sarker was the driver of the vehicle WB59/8267 at the material time of accident having his driving license No. WB59/11957. O.P alleges that the driving license was not valid at the material time of accident.  Therefore, O.P prays for dismissal of this case.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and he filed documents, copy of Bagdogra P.S. case No.188 of 2014 dt. 09.07.14 u/s.279/337/338/304A/427 of I.P.C, certificate of Insurance , certificate of registration of the vehicle, fitness certificate etc.  One  Ujjal Sarker, Branch Manager  of O.P/ Ins. Co  is examined as O.P.W. 1 on behalf of Ins. Company and documents filed status of D.L and documents  collected through R.T.I Act 2005 including the photo copies of Bagdogra P.S. Case No.188 of 2014 , Seizure List, Charge Sheet, chart of Property Description  etc.

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

Petitioner stated in the complaint petition and also deposed as P.W.-1 that the vehicle met with an accident on 08.07.14. That he is the owner of vehicle insured with the O.P and he submitted claim for damage of the vehicle following all formalities and repeatedly visited O.P’s office to realize the claim but O.P was reluctant to discharge his liability and lastly repudiated the claim by letter dt. 21.07.15.  In cross examination he deposed that at the relevant time the vehicle was driven by Kanai Sarker and he has valid driving license at that time. O.P repudiated the claim of the petitioner stating the fact that at the relevant time the driver had no valid license. O.P in this regard submitted driving license particulars of Kanai Sarker that driving license No.WB59/11957 was valid up to 16.02.12 and a report of Investigator Soumen Chakraborty, Advocate to prove the fact that on the date of accident 09.07.14 the driver had no valid license. At the same time O.P files documents which were collected through R.T.I being memo No.208/ RTI Cell/SMP dt. 17.11.15  which includes accident information report in Form No.54, copy of charge sheet, F.I.R, Seizure List etc. and also a list of Property Description seized by the police in connection with Bagdogra P.S. Case following the accident. The particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident including the particulars of offending vehicle a truck being No. No.WB73A/6777 are all mentioned there. Wherein item No.16 specifically mentioned one driving license bearing No.WB59/11957 in the R/O Kanai Sarker, S/O. Subhash Sarker of Raiganj issued on 14.10.2003 and valid up to 16.02.16 issued by license authority, Uttar Dinajpur. Therefore from these documents filed by this O.P it is proved that Kanai Sarker was possessing a valid driving license valid up to 16.02.16 and the accident occurred   admittedly on 08.07.14 i.e. during validity of license. In the F.I.R lodged at Bagdogra P.S. on 09.07.14 it is clearly stated that Kanai Sarker was driving the Ambulance No.WB59/8267. There is no other evidence to discard the fact that Kanai Lal Sarker had valid driving license. Unfortunately, Kanai Lal Sarker died in that accident on the spot. Moreover, item No.13 of property description goes to show the Insurance certificate policy quoting the policy No. in respect of the vehicle in question in the name of the complainant for the period from 16.02.14 to 15.02.15 mid night. From the documents collected under R.T.I Act by the O.P/Ins. Co. also proves the case of the petitioner.

 Therefore this Forum finds that the claim of the petitioner was wrongly repudiated by O.P/Ins. Co. only on that ground that the driver had no valid driving license, and this argument of O.P/ Ins. Co is not acceptable to this Forum. Petitioner has been able to prove his case by sufficient oral and documentary evidence that the vehicle Ambulance met with an accident on 08.07.14 at Bagdogra and was damaged. That petitioner made his claim under the Motor Claim Policy before the O.P/Ins. Co. observing all the formalities. But the letter repudiating the claim of the petitioner sent by O.P dt. 21.07.15 is unreasonable causing harassment and mental pain to the petitioner who is admittedly owner of the vehicle. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to the Insurance claim under the policy and the O.P/Ins. Co cannot deny its liability for the accident of the vehicle in question on 08.07.14.

Therefore, we find there is a gross negligence on the part of the O.P/Insurance Company   that it wrongly repudiated the claim by intimating the repudiation showing ground of driver not possessing valid license at the time of accident and on violation of terms and conditions of the Policy etc.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief from O.P./ Insurance Company in the light of our above discussion.

Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the consumer complaint being No. CC - 24/2016 be and the same succeeds on contest but in part.

The O.P/Insurance   Company is directed to pay the sum assured `1,26,000/-  under the Policy against the compensation claim for damages of the vehicle No. WB59/8267. We direct the O.P/Insurance Company to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 03.03.16.  Further, we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost. Entire amount be paid within one month from this day, lest interest to be imposed at the rate of 9% per annum till full realization. Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.