) The case of the complainant in a precise form can be reproduced as hereinunder that the complainant was the owner of a vehicle bearing no. WB - 15B - 2727 for his livelihood. That vehicle was insured to the OP No. 1 for the period 07.02.2011 to mid night of 06.02.2012. On 23.12.2011 the said vehicle suffered by an accident with damage of the vehicle. The incident was informed to Nakashipara P.S. The complainant then submitted claim in the office of the OP No. 2 on 06.01.2012.
2) OP No. 2 appointed a surveyor. Surveyor conducted assessment. The complainant submitted all the papers and documents for processing the claim. But the OP No. 2 did not take effective steps for deciding the claim in favour of the complainant.
3) Thereafter, pre and post inspection survey of the vehicle was done and completed by 14.02.2012. But the complainant did not get favourable order from OP No. 2. Complainant sent notice to OP No. 2 through his Ld. Advocate. The OP No. 2 by a letter dated 21.3.2012 repudiated the claim of the complainant on ground that accident vehicle did not have proper and valid licence on the date of accident.
4) Thereafter the complainant enquired into the matter and found that the driver had valid licence till 28.7.2011. But the said driver deposited the said driving licence with the licensing authority, Hooghly at Chinsurah for renewal 4.8.2011. Such receipt cum permission letter was issued as per user practice as the process of renewal of driving licence usually takes a couple of month.
5) Accordingly, all those papers were given to the OP No. 2 for settlement of claim. But no effect.
6) Thereafter, the complainant approached before this Forum for redressal. The non-payment of repairing cost of the vehicle which was insured to the OP No. 2 encouraged the complainant to lodge claim against OP before this Forum.
Hence the case with appropriate relief.
7) The OP No. 1 & 2 have appeared in this Forum and contested the case by filling written version denying inter alia all material allegation stated that The positive case of the OP is that it is a mandatory provision of the policy that to get the insurance coverage the said vehicle has to be driven by driver having valid licence. The assessment agreement has no bearing with the admissibility of a claim and a claim is settled if the same is admissible within the terms and conditions of the policy.
8) During the process of claim as lodged by the complainant with their all paper and taking necessary report in consideration it was found that driving licence of the driver was valid from 9.3.95 to 28.7.11. OP appointed an investigator namely Subrata Kundu for the verification of the said driving licence. The said investigator after inspection got confirmation that driving licence of the driver was valid up to 28.7.2011 and on the date of accident the driver had no valid licence as per law. Hence the OP repudiated the claim.
9) POINTS FOR DECISIONS
i) If the complainant is a consumer?
ii) If the complainant had valid policy?
iii) If the Driver of the fateful Vehicle had valid licence on the date of occurrence?
iv) If the case of the complainant is proved?
v) If the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
10) To prove the case the complainant has filed evidence in chief on oath and some Xerox papers i) Assessment Agreement self-sheet ii) Motor claim form, iii) Advocate Notice, iv) Driving Licence at Page 22, v) Receipt of renewal of licence dated 04.08. vi) another Xerox copy of Driving Licence but the complainant did not file any list of documents and affidavit of filing document.
11) Complainant has filed written notes of argument. OP has also filed written notes of argument and affidavit in chief by the OP. The complainant also filed interrogatories.
12) DECISIONS WITH REASONS
12) The complainant in his evidence in chief has stated this case in the counter affidavit the Ops have also stated their evidence on oath. It is admitted that accident was took place and the said vehicle of the complainant was insured by OP No. 2. On that fateful night when the incident had taken place on 23.12.2011, at 6 a.m. on NH 34 Debgram. There was no mention in the complaint who was driving the vehicle and for which purpose the vehicle was moving. The vast verbose complaint does not reflect the name & age of the Driver. After the occurrence the complainant lodged claim before the OP No. 1 & 2 for ameliorate the monetary sufferings regarding repairing of the vehicle and as per procedure agreement was done between complainant and OP No. 2. OP No. 2 repudiated the claim on ground that the driver who was driving the vehicle in question had no valid licence. The complainant admits it that driver Lal Mohan Hansda had a proper and valid licence by D.L. No. WB 15113082 which was valid till 28.7.2011 (Vide Para 10, 3rd and 4th line). So, it is their admission on the part of the complainant that the driver had no valid licence. On this ground the OP has repudiated the claim. So, the reason by which OP repudiated the claim has been admitted by the complainant himself in writing as mentioned hereinbefore.
13) The complainant thereafter said that the said driver deposited the licence for renewal on 04.08. That does show that the licence was deposited for renewal before the Renewal Authority after the accident and about 4 months later because there is no mention of year. Moreover, the original copy of receipt of driving licence for renewal has not been filed. Although it is not essential to verify when the driver deposited the licence for renewal because on the clear eye the Xerox copy of driving licence shows it was issued on 9.3.95 and was valid till 28.7.2011. And the complainant has admitted this fact. And the accident had taken place on 23.12.2011, that is after expiry of the valid date of driving licence.
14) So, from any corner if we apply our general mind it is crystal clear on the face of the record that on the date of the accident the driver had no valid licence and in this case in our hand the OP No. 1 & 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant only on this ground that on the date of accident the driver of the fateful vehicle had no valid licence. So, in this prespective this Forum is unable to interfere with the reason adopted by the OP No. 1 & 2 to reject the claim of the complainant which has done with reason and applied mind and giving sufficient opportunity to the complainant. Complainatn and OP had made cooperation with the complainant to that effect. But failed to allow the prayer of complainant only on the ground that driver has no valid licence which is pre requisite as per policy condition.
15) Therefore, after deliberation over the material surfaced in the record we are unable to interfere the findings and reasons of OP regarding disallowing the claim of complainant. The material on record inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum to hold that complainant’s case is devoid of any merit and case is not sustainable.
O R D E R
Therefore, it is ordered that the Complaint Case being no. 66 of 2012 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
