Order No. 19 dt. 02/01/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the owner in respect of the vehicle no.WB 11B 8895. The vehicle was insured with the o.p. The said vehicle met with an accident on 7.4.13 at Memari, Burdwan. After the said accident the incident was informed to the local police station as well as the o.p. The o.p. after receiving the said information appointed a surveyor who inspected the damaged vehicle. The complainant claimed from o.p. for reimbursement of the loss sustained by the said vehicle amounting to Rs.3,31,981/-. In spite of receiving the claim of the complainant the o.p. did not allow the prayer of the complainant, therefore the complainant had to file this case praying for an order directing the o.p. to pay the amount of Rs.3,,31,981/- and Rs.1 lakh for compensation and Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. is a reputed company incorporated under the Companies Act. The complainant is the policy holder under the o.p. being policy type commercial motor goods carrying by policy year and number 2013 and 0000000000877914 and the policy was valid from 31.3.13 to midnight of 30.3.14. It was further stated that after getting claim application on the part of the complainant, the o.p. with an intention to testify the veracity and genuineness of the claim submitted by the complainant asked to submit the original documents which were mandatory for settlement of own damaged claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy but the complainant failed to comply the same.
In order to settle the said claim made by the complainant, the o.p. appointed a survey to investigate and accordingly had placed relevant documents along with claim application before the said investigator. The surveyor / investigator after completion of investigation submitted his report. The o.p. further stated that the complainant had lodged the claim to the contesting o.p. by submitting initially one driving license in the name of Md. Mubarak and he said claim was rightly repudiated on 16.9.13 by o.p. on the ground of invalid driving license. On enquiry it was found that there was no existence of such driving license in the name of Md. Mubarak in the PVD, Kolkata and the complainant in order to stake his claim submitted another driving license issued by RTO, Mokokchung, Nagaland to o.p. in the name of same person i.e. Md. Mubarak which was also found invalid. Since the complainant of this case claiming the compensation on the basis of invalid driving license and as such the complainant will not be entitled to get any amount / compensation as claimed. In view of the facts circumstances as stated above o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had the policy under the o.p.
- Whether the policy was valid at the relevant point of time.
- Whether the vehicle met with an accident.
- Whether the complainant sustained damage in the said accident and the claim made by the complainant was repudiated illegally.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for .
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the vehicle was insured with o.p. which has not denied by o.p. and the policy was valid at the relevant point of time. On 7.4.13 while an accident took place at Memari, Burdwan and the said fact was informed to o.p. Since the vehicle sustained damage to the tune of Rs.3,31,981/- and the vehicle was insured with o.p., the complainant claimed the said amount from o.p. but the o.p. denied to allow the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver had no valid license at the time of said accident. Ld. lawyer for the complainant emphasized that the vehicle was damaged and the name of the driver was also mentioned, initially one driving license in the name of Md. Mubarak issued from Kolkata and the said claim was repudiated by o.p. on the allegation that there was no existence of such driving license in the name of Md. Mubarak. But the actual fact is otherwise. In order to prove that the said Md. Mubarak had valid license the complainant filed the same wherefrom it is evident that Md. Mubarak had valid license at the relevant point of time and since the license was issued by RTO, Mokiolchung, Nagaland. While the vehicle was driven by the said driver the accident took place. The o.p. illegally in order to deny the claim of the complainant falsely stated that the driver had no valid license at the relevant point of time. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, ld. lawyer prayed for allowing the prayer of the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of invalid driving license as on enquiry it was found that there was no existence of such driving license in the name of Md. Mubarak in the PVT, Kolkata. The complainant in order to establish his claim submitted another driving license issued by RTO, Mokokchung, Nagaland in the name of Md. Mubarak which has also been found to be invalid. In view of the said fact ld. lawyer for o.p. emphasized that by filing a false and invalid driving license the complainant claimed the damage from o.p. for which o.p. had to repudiate the claim of the complainant. Since the complainant failed to provide with all the necessary documents for reimbursement of the damage sustained by him therefore o.p. rightly denied the claim of the complainant.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with o.p. and the policy was valid at the relevant point of time. Though the complainant claimed that there was an accident but the complainant failed to file any police report to ascertain the fact that there was an accident for which the vehicle was damaged. If the complainant would have filed the documents including FIR, charge sheet or the seizure of the vehicle, if any, the fact could have been clarified in respect of the objection raised by o.p. that the vehicle was not driven by a driver having valid driving license at the relevant point of time. It is found from the materials on record that after the claim made by the complainant, one surveyor was appointed, during the investigation it came to knowledge of the surveyor that the vehicle was not driven by a driver having the valid license.
It is also found from the materials on record that initially the complainant filed a driving license to o.p. at the time of claiming damage wherefrom it is found that the driving license submitted by the complainant was issued from Kolkata, but subsequently another driving license was filed which was issued from Nagaland in the name of same driver Md. Mubarak . On both the occasions o.p. made investigation and found that the driving license was fake one and there was no existence of issuance of driving license in the name of Md. Mubarak. Since the complainant failed to establish that the vehicle was driven by a driver having valid driving license at the relevant point of time the o.p. rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant since the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. On consideration of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.567/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
