DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Bibekananda Pramanik, President,
and
Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.
Complaint Case No.106/2015
Sri Arunendu Das…………..…………..……Complainant.
Versus
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd...…..Opp. Party.
For the Complainant: Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.
For the O.P. : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.
Decided on: -21/03/2016
ORDER
Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Tata Ace Magic vehicle bearing registration no.OD-11B/3432 and he insured that vehicle with the opposite party-Insurance Company for any accidental damage of his own and the third party damage. The complainant paid the premium of the said insurance policy being no.TOQ1071330000100 covering the period from 09/09/2013 to 08/09/2014. On 28/02/2014 at about 3.45 p.m., the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Panchkhani Forest Beat office under P.S. Nayagram in the District of Paschim Medinipur, while the said vehicle was proceeding towards Kharikamathani carrying with passenger. The said vehicle dashed against one road side tree causing damage of the vehicle. Local people informed the matter at Nayagram P.S. and on receipt of such information, police started a criminal case being no.11/2014 dated 28/02/2014 under Section 279/337/338 and 427 of I.P.C. The said information was given to the opposite party-Insurance Company within stipulated period and after receiving
Contd……………..P/2
( 2 )
the information claim form of insurance was issued and the complainant submitted the claim form along with all documents before the opposite party-insurance company. The complainant took his vehicle in the service center of Paraj Motor Pvt. Ltd., Satkui and he incurred a sum of Rs.2,07,653/- on 05/04/2014 for repairing damaged vehicle and the same was submitted before the opposite party-Insurance Company. In spite of receiving all the documents, the opposite party-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 03/06/2014 illegally and due to this unfortunate accident, the complainant has already lost his source of income and huge amount of installments are remaining unpaid. By their said letter dated 03/06/2014, the opposite party-Insurance Company informed the complainant that the claim is not admissible as his engaged driver had no valid license and as such violated the Driver’s Clause of the policy for which the Insurance Company was unable to satisfy the claim of the complainant. It is stated that in spite of having effective driving license by the driver of the complainant, the Insurance Company illegally and willfully avoided the liability of making payment of Insurance benefit in respect of the damage of the insured vehicle and therefore there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Insurance Company. Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,07,653/- for cost of repairing of damaged vehicle and for payment of compensation of Rs.70,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The opposite party-Insurance Company has contested this case by filling a written objection.
Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party-Insurance Company that as per version of the claimant, the driver of the insured vehicle lost his control of the vehicle and collided with a log of wood causing damage of the vehicle on 28/02/2014 and the claim was intimated on 21/04/2014 i.e. after a delay of almost two months. However, the opposite party appointed Mr. Kaustabh Basu as Surveyor having the SLA no.72630, who immediately upon intimation carried out survey on April 21, 2014 and it was found that the driver of the said vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of accident. The driver was not authorized to drive the subjected passenger vehicle as his driving license did not have a transport endorsement as required and only had a LMV-NT which authorizes any Light Motor Vehicles used for non transportation purpose. This is a clear violation of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted by the Insurance Company that the insurance policy conditions binds both the insured and insurer and therefore the insurer cannot claim anything more than what is mentioned under the said terms. It is contended that the opposite party has denied the claim vide their letter dated 03/01/2014 as the claimant has violated the Driver’s
Contd……………..P/3
( 3 )
Clause of the policy and did not possess a valid driving license to drive the vehicle which was used for commercial and transportation purpose. The opposite party denied the claim of the complainant in accordance with the terms of the policy and hence there is no ground for sustaining the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Point for decision
Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons
In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party-Insurance Company has adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary, but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.
Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of a Tata Ace Magic vehicle bearing Registration no. OD-11B/3432 and his said vehicle was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company vide policy No.TOQ1071330000100 covering the period from 9/9/2013 to 8/9/2014. It is not denied and disputed that on 28/02/2014, the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Panchkhani Forest Beat office while the said vehicle dashed against one road side tree causing damage of the vehicle. Admittedly, after the incident of accident, the complainant submitted claim for insurance coverage before the opposite party-Insurance Company along with all documents. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of receiving all documents and claim form, the opposite party-Insurance Company repudiated his claim by sending a letter dated 03/06/2014 informing that his claim was not admissible as the driver had no valid license for which the insurance company was unable to settle the claim of the complainant.
According to the opposite party, as disclosed in their written objection, that after receiving such information, they appointed Mr. Kaustabh Basu as surveyor who immediately carried out the survey on 21/04/2014 and it was found by him that the driver of said vehicle had no valid license at the time of accident. The survey report has been annexed with the written objection as Document-3. According to the opposite party the driver was not authorized to drive the subjected passenger vehicle as his driving license did not have a transport endorsement as required and as he had only a LMV-NT which authorizes only Light Motor Vehicle used for non-transport purpose. Copy of the driving license has been enclosed with the written objection as Document-4. Further according to the opposite party they therefore denied the claim vide letter dated 03/01/2014 as the claimant has
Contd……………..P/4
( 4 )
violated the Driver’s Clause of the policy and did not possess a valid driving license to drive the vehicle which was used for commercial and transportation purpose. Copy of the said repudiation letter has been annexed as Document-5. The copy of the driving license (Document-4) shows that the driver was authorized to drive a LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) class vehicle. Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) has been defined in Sec-2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act to mean a transport vehicle of omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. So the said definition and the driving license in question go to show that the concerned driver was authorized to drive any of those vehicle as aforesaid the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. From the certificate of registration of the damaged vehicle bearing Reg. No.OD-11B/3432, we find that the unladen weight of that vehicle is 1000 kgs. At the time of hearing of argument it was submitted by the Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party that there is no endorsement on the driving license for driving a transport vehicle. On this score, Ld. Lawyer for complainant referred a ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015)3WBLR(SC)842. We have gone through the said ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court and found that in the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy as the driver failed to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle having possessing a valid driving license for driving light vehicle. From the said ruling, we find that in S. Lyyapan (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving license to drive commercial vehicle, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. Here in the present case before us we find that the driver concerned had a valid license to drive Light Motor Vehicle unladen weight of which shall not exceed 7500 kgs. The registration certificate of the damaged vehicle shows that the unladen weight of that vehicle was 1000 kgs. So, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Court and the discussions made above, we are of the view that the driver concerned in this case was duly authorized to drive the vehicle in question and the opposite party-insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim of policy in question. Complainant is therefore entitled to get compensation for damage of his vehicle under the policy.
About the extent of damage, we find from the survey report (Document-3) of the surveyor of the opposite party that after spot survey, he assessed the loss and net liability of the company to the tune of Rs.1,80,106/- and therefore the complainant is entitled to get the said amount of Rs.1,80,106/- as compensation under the policy in question from the opposite party-insurance company. Complainant is also entitled to get an order of
Contd……………..P/5
( 5 )
compensation for mental pain and agony and for an order of litigation cost.
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
that the complaint case no.106/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the opposite party-insurance company. Opposite party-insurance company is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,80,106/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur
