West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/177/2017

Mr. M. Srinivas Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royalsundram General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

19 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

                                                                                       Pulak Kumar Singha,Member,

                                                                                                          and

                                                                                           Sagarika Sarkar,Member.

Complaint Case No.177/2017.

 

                                  Mr. M. Srinivas Rao, S/o-Sitam Rao, Quarter No.LK-15, Unit-2,

                                                       Mathurakati, P.O.-Nimpura & P.S.-Kharagpur (T),                                                                

                                                                          Dist.-Paschim Medinipur                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …………..Complainant.

                                                                                             -Vs-                                                                                                                       

1)  Royalsundram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its manager,  Registered Office, 21,  Patullos Road, Chennai -600002

2)  Royalsundram General Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its manager,  Atwal Estate Building Tower, 1^st floor at O.T. Road near KGP College, Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                                                  ...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                   

              For the Complainant: Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.              : Mr. Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                                          Date of filling : 15/11/2017                                                                                                        

                                                                                             Decided on   : 19/07/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik,President:–This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Mr. M. Srinivas Rao, S/o-Sitam Rao against the above named O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service on their part.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

               Meesala Paidu Naidu, since deceased, was the son of the complainant and he was the owner of the vehicle being no.OD-01J/0556. His said vehicle was duly insured

                                                                                                                                                            Contd…..….P/2.

 

                                                                                                       (2)

with O.P.-Insurance  Co. vide policy no.MOQ1066911000100 covering the period  from 20/07/2015 to 19/07/2016. On  05/06/2016 the said vehicle met with a road traffic accident while the said vehicle was proceeding towards Midnapore from Chandrakona Road. As  a result of such accident,  the vehicle was totally damaged and the complainant has kept  his damaged vehicle in the authorized service centre named Bhandari Automobile Pvt. Ltd.  and they gave an estimate of Rs.5,75,008.98/- for repairing of the vehicle. Complainant also submitted claim of insurance before the Branch manager of O.P.-Insurance Co. and they also sent a surveyor for spot enquiry. As directed, the complainant submitted estimate of repairing and driving lisence. After a long, enquiry the O.P.-Insurance Co. has repudiated the claim of insurance on false and frivolous plea that the driver of that vehicle had no effective valid D.L.  and the vehicle was used as hire and reward purpose.  It is stated that such repudiation is illegal and improper and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  For such repudiation the complainant could not repair his vehicle and he has to pay daily garage rent. Hence this complaint praying for directing the O.P.-Insurance Co. to pay  Rs.5,75,008.96/- with interest @12% p.a., payment of garage rent, an award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

O.P.-Insurance Co. has contested this case by filing written objection.

Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the  O.P.-Insurance Co. that they rightly repudiated the claim of complainant on  the ground of drivers clause as on the  date of occurrence on 05/06/2016, the driving license of the insured driver was not valid. It is stated that the validity of the said D.L.  was expired on 02/05/2016. Since the driver insured had no valid driving lisence at the time of accident so he violated the policy condition.  It is further stated that the driving license so produced by the complainant appears to be made an unauthorized modification by changing the date from 02/05/2016 to 02/09/2016 in order to obtain wrongful benefit under the policy. The R.T.O. concerned confirmed by sending an extract of the license that license had expired on 02/05/2016.  Hence it is submitted that the claim was rightly repudiated by the O.P. It is also alleged that there was also delay of five months in intimating the claim to the O.P. However the O.P. engaged an IRDA Licensed Surveyor and as per surveyor’s report the net liability of the O.P., subject to admissibility of the claim, worked out to to Rs.5,66,450/-. In the above premises O.Ps. claim dismissal of the complaint with cost.             

       To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and two other witnesses  namely Kuntal Pahari as PW-2 and one Dipak Kumar Sahoo as  PW-3. During their evidence, documents were marked as exhibit-1 to 9 respectively. On the other hand, O.P. adduced no evidence.

                                                                                                                                                                 Contd…..….P/3.

 

                                                                                      (3)

                                                      Points for decision

1.     Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2.     Is there any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
3.     Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?

                                     

  Decision with reasons

            Point no.1 :-

                                 Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by any of the parties at the time of final hearing of this case. We also find nothing adverse regarding maintainability of this case.

This point is therefore decided in the affirmative and in favour of the        

             complainant.

               Point No.2 :-                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                Admittedly Meesala Paidi Naidu since deceased, the son of the complainant was the owner of the vehicle in question being No.OD 01J/0556 and the said vehicle was duly insured with the O.P.-Insurance Co.  vide policy No.MOQ1066911000100 covering the period from 20.7.2015 to 19.7.2016. During the said coverage period, the vehicle of the son of the complainant met with a road traffic accident, and due to such accident, the son of the complainant died. Admittedly after such accident the complainant being the father and legal heir of the owner of that vehicle which was damaged due to such accident submitted claim of insurance before the O.P.-Insurance Co. and the O.P.-Insurance Co. vide their letter dated-2.3.2017 (exhibit-3) repudiated such claim of insurance on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving license on the date of occurrence to drive the vehicle thereby violating the driver’s clause of the policy. Now the question arises as to  whether O.P.-Insurance Co. was justified in repudiating the claim of insurance nor not . Although in his petition of complaint,  the complainant did not disclose as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident but from the F.I.R. (Exbt.-3), so filed by the complainant, we find that it was none but Meesala Paidi Naidu, the owner of vehicle in question, himself had been driving the said vehicle. From exhibit-4 which is a copy of driving license of the deceased insured, so filed by the complainant, we find that the D.L. was renewed up to 2.9.2016. In their W.V., the O.P.-Insurance Co. has alleged that the complainant has made an illegal and unauthorized modification of license by changing date from 2.5.2016 to 2.9.2016. On perusal of exbt.-4, we find that there is some manipulation on the date of renewal of license. It is none but the complainant who called for the register of driving license from R.T.O. office and in compliance of summons

                                                                                                                                                                                 Contd……P/4.

                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                     (4)  

   one Dipak Kumar Sahoo (PW-3) brought the extract copy of D.L. No.63743 standing in the name of the deceased insured and the said copy of D.L.Register has been marked as exhibit-9. From this document (exbt.-9) we find that the said D.L. was renewed upto 2.5.2016. In his cross-examination said PW-3 has stated that the said D.L.was not renewed thereafter and there is no entry in the register to show that after 2.5.2016 any application for renewal of the D.L. was submitted. That being the position we find that the D.L.of the deceased owner cum driver of the vehicle was renewed upto 2.5.2016. Admittedly the accident of insured vehicle took place on 5.6.2016. So on the date of accident the deceased insured who was driving the vehicle as it appears from the F.I.R.(exbt.-3) had no valid license to drive the said vehicle. The legal position of driving an insured motor vehicle by a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, is a violation of the terms and condition of the policy and such a violation being established, the Insurance Co. cannot be fastened with liability to indemnify the loss caused to the insured vehicle. Herein the present case, as we discussed above, on the date of accident i.e. 5.6.2016 the deceased insured who himself was driving the vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving license as because the validity of his license was expired on 2.5.2016. With this position we find that there was a manifest violation of the terms and conditions of the policy to which the insurance was granted. We have therefore no hesitation to hold that the O.P.-Insurance Co. was justified in repudiating the claim of insurance in the case in hand.  

                             This point is accordingly decided against the complainant.

               Point No.3 :-                                                                                               

In view of our above findings in point no.2, the complainant is not entitled to the      reliefs as prayed for.

    All the points are accordingly disposed of.            

                In the result, the complaint case fails.

                            Hence, it is,        

                                               Ordered

                          that the complaint case no.177/2017  is dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.                             

                                Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.             Sd/-P.K. Singha           Sd/- S. Sarkar         Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                             President                          Member                       Member                  President

                                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur