ORDER
(Passed on 26/03/2021)
PER SHRI.ATUL D. ALSI , HON’BLE PRESIDENT.
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against repudiation of his own damage insurance claim for the reason of violation of driver clause and thereby claiming compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of accident and compensation and litigation charges amounting to Rs.75,000/-.
2. The story in short is that the complainant Jitendrapalsingh got his Toyota vehicle bearing No. MH-34/AA-9360 insured vide policy No. 28180131166100004293 for the period between 31/12/2016 to 30/12/2017. On 13/3/2017, while the complainant was driving his vehicle, one Nilgai suddenly came in between and dashed against the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle went out of control and in the accident sustained damages. The complainant intimated about the accident to the insurance company and the insurance company appointed Surveyor Shri Gautam Kothari to investigate and submit the report. Thereafter the complainant filed Insurance claim with relevant documents with the OP Insurance Company. The complainant submitted in his petition that the complainant was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accrual of accident which was issued by RTO, Chandrapur bearing No. MH34 2006000837.
3. On 18/8/2017 Insurance Company issued one letter to the complainant calling explanation in respect of not holding effective driving license. After receipt of letter the complainant submitted a copy of valid driving license for transport and non transport category but even then, the opposite party repudiated the Insurance claim holding that the complainant was not having valid license at the time of accident vide its letter dated 12/9/2017. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice through his advocate Mr. Nandkishor Potdukhe calling upon the OP Insurance Co. to honour the claim, however the notice was not complied. Therefore the complainant has filed present petition.
4. The complaint is admitted and notices were served on the OP Nos.1 & 2. The OP Nos.1 & 2 filed their joint reply and thereby denied allegations, but admitted the issuance of vehicle insurance policy in question for the period from 31/12/2016 to 30/12/2017. However they submitted that the complainant did not file FIR about the accident with the concerned police station which is fatal to the Insurance claim. The complainant even failed to submit valid and effective driving license at the time of accrual of accident. Hence the rejection of Insurance claim vide letter dated 12/9/2017 does not amount to negligence in service on the part of OP No. 1 and 2 and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
5. The counsel for the complainant Adv. Pandhre argued that the complainant has filed evidence on oath at Exhibit 21 alongwith copy of driving license issued by RTO, Chandrapur on 15/3/2019 at 4.3 5 p.m. at exhibit 22 which clearly shows that the complainant is having valid and effective driving license for the transport and non transport category of vehicle. For Transport category vehicle it is valid from 20/11/2009 to 30/6/2020 and for non transport category it is valid from 25/9/2012 to 30/6/2022 with specific footnote by RTO, Chandrapur holding that the complainant is having license bearing No.MH 34. 20060000837 which was valid and effective on 17/3/2017 for light motor vehicle category which is issued on 15/3/2019. The complainant also submitted certified copies of that license to the insurance company and has also filed copy thereof on record of this petition. The complainant had submitted a proper explanation and had also filed a copy of the valid driving license in response to the query made by the opposite party vide letter dated 18/8/2017, and, therefore, the repudiation of Insurance claim is illegal and is made with an intention to avoid liability and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2.
6. The counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2 submitted written notes of argument on 6/1/2020 advanced oral arguments with pursis on 24/3/2021 through adv. Mangesh Deshpande with case law of Hon’ble National consumer disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in CPJ 2010 (volume III) Page 256 in the matter of National insurance Company Limited versus Sansarchand, holding that when the driver does not have valid and effective driving license, then claim can not be settled on non standard basis. He submitted in written notes of arguments that the complainant was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and he also failed to submit proper explanation and hence the claim is repudiated as per letter dated 12/9/2017 which is proper and hence there is no negligence of service and the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.
7. The basic dispute is in respect of holding of valid driving license. The sole reason for repudiation of claim is, not holding valid driving license at the time of accident. The complainant has submitted a copy of extract of driving license filed by the complainant along with affidavit on oath at exhibit 21 which clearly shows that the complainant was holding valid driving license on 17/3/2017 for light motor vehicle category at the time of accrual of accident. The original copy of extract of license dated 15/3/2019 was shown to us in the court and we have verified the details therein with the copy thereof filed on record by the complainant. As per driving licence at 15/03/2019 the complaint is authorized to drive all types of light motor vehicle including complaint’s vehicle hence there is no fundamental breach of terms of insurance contract. The complainant has filed latest copy of renewed license which is the valid certificate and is acceptable and it prevails over old license. Therefore the repudiation of Insurance claim for the reason that the complainant was not holding valid driving license does amount to negligence of service.
8. When there is no serious injury or death occurred to an animal or person in that case no criminal offence is made out, and hence it is not necessary to report the matter with police. Hence non filing of FIR in respect of accident is not fatal for claiming compensation. The complainant has filed invoice dated 31/3/2017 about repairs of vehicle by Cosmic Grace Auto ltd. amounting to Rs.3,61,443/-. The bills are not dispute by the OP Insurance company. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim amounting to Rs.3,61,443/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of admission of petition that is 19/12/2017 tilll realization of the claim amount alongwith compensation for mental torture of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
9. In view of our observation supra, we pass the following
Final order
- The Complaint No.203/2017 is partly allowed as against OP Nos.1 & 2 Insurance Company.
- The OP No.1 & 2 are directed to Jointly or severally pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3,61,443/-. towards insurance claim along with interest @ 8% per annum from admission of case i.e. 19/12/2017 till realization of amount.
- The OP No.1 & 2 are further directed to Jointly or severally pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. towards compensation for mental torture and further Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.
(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute) (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil) (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)
Member Member President
