HON’BLE MR. ASHIS KUMAR BASU, MEMBER
Order No. 04
Date : 07.01.2020
The record is put up for order.
1 .The appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act ,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Burdwan ( the District Forum, in short ) in Consumer Complaint No. 76 of 2015 preferred by the appellant.
2. The dispute in the present case arises out of complaint filed by the Appellant – Complainant of deficiency in service on the part of Respondent- Opposite Party in relation to repudiation of an insurance claim for road accident of a heavy goods vehicle.
3. The appellant is aggrieved as the Ld. District Forum has gone through a wrong direction of the instant case resulting an incorrect decision.
4. The appellant is also aggrieved as the Ld. Forum passed the impugned judgment on surmise and conjecture not on material ground and facts of the record and supporting documents. The order is against principle of natural justice.
5. The appellant is also aggrieved as the Ld. Forum failed to realize that the driver of the vehicle bearing no. MP 09 HF-6596 having driving license no. WQB3720020030670 was valid and effective on the date of the accident. The said driving license was valid for’ transport’ vehicle for the entire period except from 18.11.2008 to 08.11.2009 and 09.11.2012 to 21.01.2013 but actually the accident occurred on 20.05.2013
6. The appellant is also aggrieved as the Ld. Forum below did not consider that it was a genuine case of deficiency in service on the part of Respondent- Opposite party as the appellant had submitted all the essential documents for legitimate claim of compensation which was repudiated by Respondent on the flimsy ground that the driving license ( DL in short ) of the driver was not valid and effective on the date of the accident.
7. The appellant is also dissatisfied as the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan, on 30.06.2017 is bad in law and liable to be set aside/ quashed for the sake of justice.
8. Appellant prayed for admission of the appeal before this commission with a direction to the Respondent to compensate the sum assured in the insurance policy along with compensation of Rs.50000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the Appellant and to pay Rs.20000/- as litigation cost.
9. The fact of the case in brief is Shyam Bahadur, S/o Churamoni Bahadur, Kirtaniya Para, 4 Raniganj, Dist. Burdwan , PIN 713347, Complainant – appellant , is the owner of the heavy goods vehicle, bearing no. MP 09 HF- 6596 and he purchased an insurance policy from the Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance, Asansol, 74(192) G.T. Road, P.C.Chatterjee Market , Asansol 713303, Burdwan , Respondent- Opposite party, covering the risk of the vehicle and the period of insurance was from 18.01.2013 to 17.01.2014. The chassis and body of the said insured vehicle was badly damaged when it met a road accident at Raniganj on 20.05.2013. The local police station recorded this accident issuing G. D. bearing no. GDE 1800, Raniganj dated 24.05.2013. The appellant also informed the Respondent- insurance company of this accident through e-mail and subsequently, all necessary document including DL of the driver who was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident, were submitted to the Respondent-OP. Ultimately the damaged vehicle was sent to Josbindar Show Repairing Works, a repairing workshop, for estimation of repairment who determined the cost of repairment to the tune of Rs. 481750/-. The Appellant- Complainant submitted the estimated cost of repairment to the Respondent and claimed the said amount as per insurance policy. The surveyor appointed by the OP- insurance co. submitted the report after inspecting the vehicle. OP- Respondent informed Complainant- Appellant through a letter dated 16.10.2013 that his claim had been repudiated as the driver of the said vehicle did not have valid and effective DL at the time of accident. Appellant tried his best to settle the claim amicably by claiming actual cost of repairing less salvage value but all in vain for the alleged invalid DL possessed by the driver of the said vehicle. The complainant submitted valid DL, issued by RTI, Asansol, but the OP did not pay any heed to this matter and repudiated the claim which tantamount to breach of contract and deficiency in service under C.P. Act. The appellant made a last attempt to settle the dispute with Respondent- OP through a letter dated 05.01.2015 but without any response on the part of OP . Finding no remedy, the complainant filed his complaint before Ld. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Burdwan, being Complaint Case no 76 of 2015 on 11.02.2015. praying total compensation of Rs. 781750/- which consisted of Rs.481750/- for cost of repairing, Rs.1,50,000/- loss of earning from the said vehicle and Rs. 150000/- for unfair trade practice .
10. In the impugned order, Ld. Forum below observed that, though the Hon’ble NCDRC allowed 75% of the claim amount in case of compensation covered under insurance policy, but this would not be applicable in the instant case as driver applied for renewal of driving license after more than thirty days from the date of expiry of the same. In that case the renewal of DL shall be from the date of filing application. Hence it cannot be considered that the DL was valid and effective on the date of accident. Ld. Forum below also observed that this was a breach of contract as well as violation of Section 5 of the M. V. Act, 1988, on the part of complainant. In view of the above , the Ld. Forum below dismissed the insurance claim of the Complainant on contest.
11. In the written arguments, the Respondent- OP, contended that though the coverage of the insurance policy purchased by the Appellant was from 18.01.2013 to 17.01.2014 and the date of accident 20.05.2013 was within the period of insurance but compensation was rightly repudiated due to invalid DL possessed by the driver of the said vehicle on the date of the accident and it was a clear violation of Section 14 and 15 of Motor Vehicles Act. There is also a breach of contract in terms of insurance policy on the part of appellant as he allowed the driver to drive the said vehicle without valid DL. Respondent cited the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘ where it is held that “ The owner of the vehicle has a statutory obligation to see that the driver of the vehicle who he authorized to drive the same holds a valid license”. Therefore , there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Respondent. In support of this view, Respondent referred Section 15 (A) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 , regarding “ Renewal of driving license” it states that “ If an application for renewal is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry – The license continues to be effective without break ….. Whereas , when the application for renewal is filled after more than 30 days after date of its expiry – The license is renewed only with effect from the date of his renewal”. Respondent also cited the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court 2008 (4) SBR 206 decided on 04.03.2008 where it is held that as per section 147 and 149 of M.V. Act – where the vehicle was driven by a person not holding valid license , the insurance company would not be liable. Respondent argued that the DL had been renewed after the date of accident and it was not renewed from the date of expiry of the DL under dispute.
12. In the written argument, Appellant – Complainant contended that Respondent’s claim from the extract of DL issued by Licensing Authority, Asansol that the DL of Ajoy Bahadur Thapa, the driver of the said vehicle was invalid on the date of accident 20.05.2013 and violation of Section 14 and Section 15 of the M.V. Act 1988 was incorrect . The said driver submitted DL to the Licensing Authority, Asansol for renewal on 22.01.2013 and got a receipt which was valid for 120 days from date of issue i.e up to 21.05.2013. The appellant also claimed that the Competent Licensing Authority, Asansol, revalidated the receipt upto 30.06.2013 on 23.05.2013 and Appellant got the delivery of the renewed DL on 07.06.2013 from the said authority. In support of his claim, the Appellant contended that from the extract of DL issued by Licensing Authority , Asansol, disclosed specifically ( running page no. 32 ) the period of invalidity of D L which was from 09.11.2012 to 21.01.2013. This document clearly shows that the D/L was valid on 20.05.2013, the date of accident. Appellant argued that at the time of passing the impugned order on 30.06.2017, Ld. Forum below did not evaluate these authenticate documents from which it could be established that DL was valid and effective on the date of accident. From the Extract of the driving license it is found that the DL of Ajay Bahadur Thapa having DL No. WB 3720020030670 had validity ( transport ) up to 21.06.2016
13. Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of both parties and perused the material available on record. In fact, the cardinal point of this case is whether the driver had valid and effective DL on the date accident as only for these reason the Respondent repudiated the insurance claim of the Appellant. If we take a close look into the matter, it will be found that Appellant had purchased Insurance policy from Respondent on 29.01.2013 against any risk of his heavy goods vehicle bearing no. MP 09HF-6596 covering for the period 18.01.2013 to 17.01.2014 . The said truck ( Tipper )met a road accident on 20.05.2013 which was very much within the coverage period and its front portion was badly damaged. The damaged vehicle was taken to repairing work shop where the estimated cost stood at Rs. 481750/-. Respondent appointed a surveyor to estimate the loss suffered by the damaged vehicle. After receiving all documents for compensation from the Appellant and report of the surveyor, the respondent informed through a letter dated 16.10.2013 that his insurance claim had been repudiated as the driver of the said vehicle did not have valid and effective DL on the date of the accident .
14. From record, it is found Appellant filed the photo-copy of the DL of Ajay Bahadur Thapa, the driver concerned which shows it is valid till-( Transport) -21.01.2016 and “ The said driver submitted DL for renewal on 22.01.2013 which is proved beyond doubt from DAK Receipt for DL/Renew under Govt. of West Bengal. Vide Receipt No. 31956313 dated 22.01.2013 issued by Licensing Authority Asansol and it was mentioned that “ This Receipt is valid up to 120 days from the Date of Issue “. From this ’DAK Receipt ‘ it is clear that the DL was valid up to 21.05.2013. . It is also mentioned in the DL Extract Details that ‘ The license was valid throughout the period except: From Date 09/11/2012 to 21/01/2013 for transport.’ Which implies that the DL was valid on 20.05.2013, date of the accident. In Schedule B , running page no.31, Licensing Authority, M.V. Deptt. Asansol disclosed in the questionnaires answers that the driver submitted DL for renewal on 22.01.2013. From record it is found that the driver got the delivery of the renewed DL on 07.06.2013. From all these authenticate documents, it is quite evident that the driver received the renewed license phisically after the date of accident 20.05.2013 but DL was valid and effective up to 21.05.2013 as per DAK Receipt dated 22.01.2013 which have been mentioned earlier. Respondent cited some cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his arguments but in those cases the driver did not have valid and effective DL at the relevant time.
15. Going through all pros and cons of the case , we are of the opinion that the driver had valid and effective DL on the date of accident. Hence Respondent- OP has no valid reason to repudiate the insurance claim of the appellant. Therefore, Respondent – OP is liable for deficiency in service towards the appellant- complainant and the later is entitled for compensation. As per CERTIFICATE CUM POLICY SCHEDULE the IDV for the vehicle was Rs. 10,00,000/- and regarding LIMIT OF LIABILITY, it is mentioned that any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event is Rs. 750000/-. The Appellant submitted the copy of bill for estimation made by repairing work-shop for damaged vehicle in detail which stands at Rs. 481750/-. We are of the opinion that, to meet the end of justice, 75% of Rs 481750/- be the amount of insurance compensation along with interest @ 9% from the date of claim. The respondent is also directed to pay Appellant- Complainant Rs. 10000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 10000/- for litigation cost incurred by the appellant.
Ordered
The instant appeal being RBR/A/48/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest without cost.
Respondent is directed to pay Rs.361312/- to the Appellant for compensation within 45 days from date of this order along with interest @ 9% p.a on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e 11.02.2015 till realization.
Respondent is directed to pay Rs.10000/- to the appellant for causing mental agony and harassment within 45 days from date of passing this order apart from litigation cost Rs. 10000/- within the said period.
If not complied with, complainant shall be eligible to file execution in the Hon’ble trial court below.
Let a copy of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost immediately.
