The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he is the registered owner of one ‘M&M Pick Up Van’ bearing registration no.WV-15-A-5507 which he runs exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood and the said vehicle was insured with the oP no.1 through Op no.2 vide
Policy 153600/31/11/6300000099 valid for the period from 1.4.2011 to Midnight of 31.3.2012. The further case of the complainant is that on 16.05.2011 the vehicle of the complainant met
with an accident at Rathtala, under P.S. Chanditala, Hooghly causing severe damage to the vehicle of the complainant . The matter was intimated to the oP no.2 regarding the claim by an intimation letter dated 17.5.2011 and also submitted the formal claim . That one surveyor was appointed by the OP no.2 to assess the damage to the vehicle of the complainant and after survey both the complainant and the surveyor signed one assessment agreement sheet. The complainant submitted all the papers and documents necessary for processing his claim directly to the oP no.2 but the Op no.2 remained silent for a long period and paid no heed to the repeated requests made by the complainant to settle his claim without delay. The Op no.2 thereafter sent a repudiation letter and declared that the claim as “No claim “ as they alleged that the driver was not holding valid and effective license at the time of accident. Finding no other alternative the complainant has come before the Forum for necessary redress.
The complainant prayed before the forum to direct the oP to pay Rs. 1,13,033/- towards insurance claim to the complainant with 18% interest p.a. w.e.f 23.5.2011. Also direct the oP to pay Rs 20,000/- to the complainant for harassment , mental agony and anxiety and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
To substantiate his case the complainant filed -
1) Xerox copy of driving license,
2) copy of policy ,
3) Xerox copy of letter dated 17.5.2011 addressed to Divisional Engineer, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Chandernagore Division,
4) Copy of letter addressed to the Officer in charge, copy of Motor claim form ,
5) Estimate of repairing of vehicle issued by TARAMA BODY BUILDERS, Sheoraphuli, Hooghly dated 2.8.2011 etc.
The Opposite party appeared by filing Written version denying all material allegations made against them stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and there is no cause of action against this OP. The Op submitted that whenever any intimation of damage of a vehicle under valid insurance coverage to the Insurance company it is the normal and required process for appointment of a survey or for the assessment of the loss, if any, and after having had final survey report if the loss is permitted to be indemnified strictly under the terms and conditions , limitation, exceptions and more particularly within the scope of the policy and an amount but never exceeding as assessed and as agreed by the insured as per the assessment agreement sheet as duly reduced in writing and signed by the insured and surveyor. The Op denied that the complainant completed all formalities for the process of the claim or that the oP no.2 at all remained silent over the matter or that there was repeated request by the complainant for settlement of the claim. The OP further states that on the face of the survey report it could be gathered that the validity of the tax token expired prior to the accident and the renewed tax was paid after the occurrence of the accident and thus the tax receipt was not valid at the material time of the alleged accident and the same is a clear violation of the condition of the policy. It is also submitted that the Insurance company
authorized an investigator for verification of the licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the material time and the said investigator namely Subrata Kundu on payment of proper fe3es before the Licencing authority , Hooghly that Kanai Sharma was the holder of the
old manual DL bearing no.WB 15/211850 and said licence was valid from 26.7.2002 to 15.4.2011 and long after the accident the Smart card licence no.14570211 was issued in favour of him but that licence was effect from 30.6.2011 and hence at the mater4ial time of accident the driver was driving the vehicle without any proper licence and that was also a serious violation of the condition of the policy. Therefore, the OP prays for dismissal of the case of the complainant with costs.
To prove their case the Ops file Xerox copy of documents as per firisti no. 1 to 6 dated 3.6.2014.
Upon pleadings, Written version and the documents filed by both the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
Points
- Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no. 1
Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the oP no.1 through Op no.2 vide Policy no.153600/31/11/6300000099 and it is beyond doubt that to obtain the policy
from the Ops the complainant had to pay the premium to the Ops . So the complainant is a consumer under the OP u/s 2(d)(i) of C.P.Act 1986.
The point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
In the instant case in our hand it is admitted position that the alleged vehicle met with accident on 16.5.2011 and the matter was intimated to the Op no.2 by letter dated 17.5.2011 . The oP no.2, as per document, observed all formalities and prepared supplemental estimate. The Opposite party Insurance company rejected the claim on the ground driver was not holding valid and effective license at the time of accident by letter dated 17.10.2011. The registrations of the vehicle, the tax token of the vehicle and the phenomenon of accident and repairing the said vehicles are all matter of records and admitted by the Opposite party. The complainant has filed one paper which is the driving licence of Kanai Sharma, date of expiry of that licence was 15.4.2011 . The accident took place on 16.5.2011 . It is the document of the complainant which supports this discrepancy that driver had no valid license on the date of accident. It is settled law of the land that , the driver must have valid license in driving vehicles whatsoever. In the instant case the driver had no valid license on the date of accident. We are refraining ourselves from any such further lengthy discussions where the case itself is devoid of merit. Hence it is-
Ordered
That the CC no.51 of 2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest. But no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
