Complainant by filing this complainant has submitted that he is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing No.WB-15-7454 which was insured under the present Insurance Company for the period 28.09.2006 to 27.09.2007 payment of premium of Rs.8,216/- for the said vehicle having Policy No.101800/31/06/6300001573 with sum assured  of Rs. 3,50,000/-.

          During validity of the said insurance policy on 07.03.2007 at about 6:45 A.M. the said vehicle or truck met an heavy accident near at Fufurdih on G.T. Road near Dhanbad under Govindapur Police Station, Jadav Line Hotel in the state of Jharkhand and the complainant informed Gobindapur (Barwadda) and lodged FIR immediately at the said police station on 07.03.2007 and after that the vehicle was seized by the said police station.

          Thereafter on 16.03.2007 op no.2 informed the complainant through a letter regarding appointment of surveyor for the said claim/loss for final survey and at that time of accident the matter was also informed by the op and said office deputed a surveyor at spot on the same day.

          In the meantime the complainant received final survey certificate report from the op where the op enclosed survey report/acceptance note and released the claim amount of Rs.2,71,500/- in place of Rs. 3,00,000/-.  Thereafter complainant wrote several letters to the ops for payment and complainant also surrendered the original policy bond to the op but op did not disburse the amount of that claim as a result of which complainant was annoyed and harassed and thereafter op issued a letter on 22.07.2008 informed since the driver holds driving license to drive light motor vehicle only but the vehicle is heavy motor.  Therefore he is not permitted to drive the vehicle as per MV Act that the claim was repudiated and against that complainant has prayed for relief on the ground that driver had valid licnese and there is no such term that driver must have possessed heavy vehicle licence. 

On the contrary the op by filing written statement submitted that the surveyor after proper inspection submitted report to the op and recommended Rs.2,71,000/- for loss/damage of the vehicle of the complainant.  But after receive of the said report and also after verifying of the driving licence the op repudiated the claim on the ground at the relevant time driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence.  But driver had his driving licence to drive light motor vehicle licence.  But it must be heavy motor vehicle lincece and investigation also reported the fact and for which the said claim was repudiated and fact remains loss assessor after he assessed the loss, but he is not the authority to grant loss as claimed by the complainant and as because complainant has not appeared before this Forum with clean hand.  So, he is not entitled to get any relief and so complaint should be dismissed.

                                     Decision with reasons

In the present case after hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the allegations of the complainant as taken by the op in the written version and also considering the inspection note issued by the surveyor, it is found that surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.2,71,500/- and insured Kiran Poddar accepted such loss and signed in the acceptance note and in the said note it is specifically stated that the amount may be released subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

But in the present case after considering the repudiation letter it is clear that claim was repudiated on the ground that driver had no valid license.  But fact remains driver had driving license for light motor vehicle.  But the present vehicle was heavy motor vehicle.  But in this regard it is to be mentioned that in the insurance policy it is not stated that valid license means valid license of driver for driving of particular type of vehicle and when driver had valid driving license may be light motor vehicle but for that reason as per terms and conditions of the policy claim cannot be repudiated and when it is proved that complainant accepted the assessment of loss/damage in respect of accident to the tune of Rs.2,71,500/-, no doubt the op ought to have released the said amount.

But that has not been done on the ground that for heavy motor vehicle for driving, the driving license of heavy vehicle must, but in this case we want to say that the present op neglected his social legislation and it was engaged for protect the social purpose of the consumers and applying that the said very very spirit and object of the CP Act 1986 we find that for some technical ground claim should not be repudiated in such a fashion and in the mean time Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that for technical ground no insurance claim should be repudiated and in view of the above findings we find that no doubt the driver had no such valid driving license but driver had light motor vehicle license as because he has his driving license to prove LMV.  So, he has to right to drive it and accident may be caused by any driver at the heavy license at the time of driving of light motor vehicle or heavy motor vehicle and in the present case we have considered the entire claim of the complainant.

In the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding release of insurance claim to the complainant even if some abnormalities is found by the insurance company relating to inspection of driving license in respect of a driver who had been driving the ill fated vehicle at the time of accident.

Relying upon the above observation we are allowing the claim of the complainant partly with cost.

Hence, it is

                                                 ORDERED