Consumer Complaint No. 76 of 2015
Date of filing: 11.3.2015 Date of disposal: 30.6.2017
Complainant: Shyam Bahadur, S/o. Churamoni Bahadur, resident of Kirtaniya Para, 4 Raniganj, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 347.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance, Asansol, 74 (192) G. T. Road, P. C. Chatterjee Market, 3rd Floor, “A” Block, Asansol – 713 303, District: Burdwan, W.B.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, P. K. Chaudhuri & Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Saurav Kumar Mitra.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP has repudiated his legitimate insurance claim illegally and arbitrarily on flimsy pretext.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being the owner of a vehicle he obtained an insurance policy from the OP covering the risk of the vehicle which was valid for the period from 29.01.2013 to 17.01.2014. The Complainant purchased the said vehicle for the purpose of earning his livelihood and to maintain his family. On 20.05.2013 the insured vehicle met with an accident at Ranigunj and for this reason the chasis and the body of the vehicle got damage due to collision with the road side tree while the driver was trying to save a cow and the cow boy which were suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle. The local police station recorded one GD on 24.05.2013. The fact of the accident was informed through e-mail to the Insurance Company and subsequently at the time of filing the claim form entire relevant papers and documents including the driving license of the concerned driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. After the accident the damaged vehicle was sent to the repairing shop namely Josbindar Show Repairing Works for taking an estimate for repairing of the same. After appointment of the Surveyor by the Insurance Company, he inspected the damaged insured vehicle therein. Accordingly the Surveyor submitted the report to the Insurance Company. The abovementioned workshop gave an estimate towards the repairing cost of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.4, 81,750=00, which was sent to the OP. Regarding the repairing cost dispute arose by and between the Complainant and the OP. The OP by issuing a letter date 16.10.2013 informed the Complainant that the claim could not be settled due to possession of an invalid driving license by the driver at the time of the accident. The Complainant tried his level best to compromise the matter with the OP, but the OP did not intend to resolve the dispute. The Complainant has claimed the actual cost of the repairing less salvage value, but the OP had negligently avoided and denied the claim by making a false allegation of holding an invalid driving license at the relevant time. The Complainant supplied the valid driving license issued by the appropriate authority, but the OP kept itself silent over the matter, which caused breached of contract and deficiency in service. As the grievance of the Complainant had not been redressed by the OP, hence finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4, 81,750=00 towards the cost of the repairing charge, Rs.1, 50,000=00 towards the loss of earning in the self employment business, compensation to the tune of Rs.1, 50,000=00 to him.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP by filing written version contending that a policy of insurance was issued covering the risk of the vehicle of the Complainant on 29.01.2013, which was valid till 17.01.2014 subject to certain terms, conditions and stipulations thereof. The said policy was issued for a goods vehicle. The OP has stated that the instant complaint is not maintainable before the ld. Consumer Forum because as per the M.V. Act the vehicle is a transport vehicle and the same was used for commercial purpose by the Complainant. The complaint is bad for defect of parties as from the documents so produced by him it appears that the vehicle was hypothecated with Shriram Finance Company Limited but the Complainant has failed to incorporate the said Company as a party. The OP has submitted in the written version that upon receipt of the claim form lodged by the Complainant one Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed, who after his survey submitted the report along with driving license of the driver. The OP obtained the extract of the DL from where it is appeared that on the date of accident the DL was not valid and after the accident the DL was renewed. So there is clear violation of the Section 14 & 15 of the MV Act and for this reason the claim of the Complainant was repudiated and the same was duly intimated to the Complainant by issuing repudiation letter dated 16.10.2013. Therefore as there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant on the part of this OP, the complaint does not stand. According to the OP the Complainant did not come before this Ld. Forum with clean hand as the contract of insurance is a contract on good faith and trust. The Complainant has violated the terms of the policy by handing over the vehicle to his driver who was not holding valid driving license and for such violation of the contract the OP has repudiated the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant knowingly well that he is not entitled to get any claim from this OP has filed this complaint with a view to grab some money from this OP through an illegal manner. Therefore the complaint being frivolous, false and vexatious is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents in support of his contention. The OP has also adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents by way of ‘firisty’. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC, reported in 2015 (4) CPR 13 (NC). The Ld. Counsel for the OP has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2014 1 CPR (SC) 287 and the OP has also filed the photocopy of the Section 14 & 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
We have carefully perused the record, documents filed by the parties; rulings relied on by the parties and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that the following admitted facts are involved in this complaint i.e. the vehicle of the Complainant was under the coverage of an insurance policy covering its risk obtained from the OP, the policy was valid for the period from 29.01.2013 to 17.01.2014, due premium was paid, on 20.05.2013 within the validity of the policy the insured vehicle met with an accident, GDE recorded by the local police station, this dispute is related with the transport vehicle/license, the information was given to the Insurance Company, claim form issued, claim was lodged along with the relevant papers, Surveyor was appointed, Surveyor submitted his report to the Insurance Company, due to accident the insured vehicle got severe damage, for getting an estimation towards the repairing cost of the vehicle the same was brought to the repairing shop, an estimation was provided by the said shop to the tune of Rs.4,81,750=00 for repairing cost of the vehicle, on 16.10.2013 the OP by issuing the repudiation letter had repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the driver did not hold valid driving license, upon receipt of the said letter the Complainant tried his level best to mitigate the dispute with the OP, to no effect. The allegation of the Complainant is that the OP has repudiated his genuine insurance claim arbitrarily and according to the Complainant such action can easily be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As his grievance had not been redressed by the OP, hence by filing this complaint the Complainant has sought for some reliefs along with the estimated repairing cost of the vehicle.
Therefore, short dispute is involved in this complaint as to whether the driving license which the driver of the said vehicle possessed on the date of the accident was valid or not.
For production of the extract of the driving license of Ajay Bahadur Thapa being no-WB 37/200230670, the driver entrusted by the Complainant who was driving the questioned vehicle at the time of the accident, from the Licensing Authority, Asansol, the Complainant made an application, which was allowed and the concerned authority was requested to produce the same before this Ld. Forum. Accordingly the same was produced and the Complainant put some questionnaire in respect of the said extract and the concerned authority has replied the same. From the replies it is evident that the Licensing Authority, M.V. Department, Asansol has replied that the said authority had issued the driving license bearing no-WB-37200230670 in the name of Ajay Bahadur Thapa, the holder of the said license applied before the concerned authority for renewal of his license on 22.01.2013 and on 07.06.2013 the renewed driving license was delivered to the holder/applicant by the concerned authority. From the extract of the driving license as produced by the Licensing Authority it is evident that the questioned driving license was valid throughout the period except from 18.11.2008 to 08.11.2009 & 09.11.2012 to 21.01.2013. Therefore the extract shows that on the date of accident the driving license of the holder was valid. In this respect the Ld. Counsel for the OP has mentioned the Section 14 & 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The sub-Section 2(a) of the Section 14 reveals that ‘in the case of license to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years’. The Section 15 of the MV Act, 1988 enumerates as follows:-
Renewal of Driving Licenses: (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry:
Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a license is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal:
Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a license to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of the Section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner’s license.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving license is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf.
(4) Where an application for the renewal for a driving license is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving license made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in sub-section (3):…………………………………………………………………
The Ld. Counsel for the OP has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned before. We have carefully perused the said judgment. The fact of the said case was that-
“as per the certificate issued by the licensing authority the driving license of the deceased driver had expired on 25.10.1991, accident took place on 29.02.1992 and it was effected from 23.03.1992. It was not the case of the claimant that the driver had applied for renewal of the license within 30 days of the date of its expiry. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the appellant that the driving license was renewed only with effect from 23.03.1992.’
Their Lordships have held in the paragraph no-16 of the said judgment which runs as follows-
16. ………….‘From a plain reading of Section 15 of the Act, it is clear that if an application for renewal of license is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry, the license continues to be effective and valid without a break as the renewal dates back to the date of its expiry. Whereas, when an application for renewal is filed after more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, gets attracted and the license is renewed only with effect from the date of its renewal, meaning thereby that in the interregnum between the date of expiry of the license and the date of its renewal, there is no effective license in existence. The provision is clear and admits of no ambiguity. …………………. Admittedly, having failed to apply for renewal of the driving license within 30 days from the date of its expiry in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the license could not be renewed with effect from the date of its expiry and therefore, between the period from 26.10.1991 to 22.03.1992, the deceased driver had no valid and effective driving license as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. We are convinced that during this period, he did not hold at all an effective driving license, as required in the terms and conditions governing the policy on the date of accident i.e. 29.02.1992.’
In the paragraph-17 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that-
17. ‘As a matter of fact, in view of the clear mandate of Section 3 of the Act, the deceased driver was not even permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place. Furthermore, the claimant not only committed breach of the terms of the policy, he also violated the provisions of Section 5 of the Act by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not hold a valid license on the date of accident……… In our opinion, therefore, the appellant was not liable to indemnify the claimant for the loss suffered by him in the accident of the insured vehicle.’
In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to mention another decision passed by Their Lordships passed in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra).
We have perused the ruling as relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant as mentioned before. Upon perusal of the same in our view the said ruling in our view the same is not applicable in the case in hand because the fact of the said case is not at all similar and identical in nature with this complaint and moreover it has been held in the said judgment that claim can be settled on non-standard basis where breach is not fundamental in nature. As in that case the breach was not fundamental in nature, hence the Hon’ble NCDRC has allowed 75% of the claim amount. But in the instant breach is fundamental in nature because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observed in the relied case that as the holder of the driving license had failed to make application for renewal of his license within 30 days from the date of its expiry and made application after lapse of 30 days, hence the license cannot be said as valid and effective license on the date of occurrence as the same was not renewed from the date of its expiry. Moreover it has been further held that the concerned driver cannot be permitted to drive the insured vehicle in a public place. The fact of the said case is totally similar and identical with this complaint and hence in our view the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is very much applicable in the case in hand. We are also of the opinion keeping view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the complainant not only committed breach of terms of the policy, he also violated the provisions of the section 5 of the act entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not hold a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident.
Though the extract of the driving license of Ajay Bahadur Thapa reveals that his driving license was valid on the date of accident, but as the Complainant did not file the renewed driving license of the concerned person, we cannot draw the conclusion that on the date of accident the concerned driver possessed a valid and effective driving license. On the whole where the Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court exist in the record, we are not inclined to rely on any other documents.
In our view as the Complainant has failed to prove his allegation by adducing cogent document, hence the complaint fails.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 76/2015 is dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
