West Bengal

Bankura

CC/31/2017

Sri Kiran Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Monotosh Parta - Opp.Party(s)

Anandamohan Mondal

26 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 31/2017

         Date of Filing: 13.04.2017

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee                          Ld. Member. 

3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P. : Ld. Advocate Chandi Charan Advaryuu

 

Complainant 

Sri Kiran Sarkar, S/o Late Kishore Sarkar, at Nutanchati, Christiandanga, Bankura

 

Opposite Party

1.Sri Monotosh Patra, S/o Narendranath Patra, at Lokepur, Kayastha Para, Bankura

2.The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Ins. Co. Ltd., Bankura branch, Machantala, Bankura

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT               

                                                                                                                                            

Order No.42

Dated:26-07-2023

Complainant is present by filing hazira through advocate.

O.P. 2 files hazira through Advocate with written argument.

No step is taken by the O.P. 1

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he is a professional driver bearing Driving License No.11538/PROF/2013 issued on 10/01/2013 from the Office of the RTO, Bankura which was lastly renewed on 09/01/2016 and he was in employment at the relevant time under O.P.1 having a monthly salary to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to ply the Ambulance of O.P.1 bearing Registration No.WB 67A/8502 but on 03/02/2016 at about 3 a.m. the said Ambulance met with an accident in between Belboni and Makurgram with a Truck No. being WB 29/9248 when the Complainant was driving the Ambulance from Durgapur to Bankura whereby the Complainant sustained multiple grievous blood injuries and thereafter he was taken to BSMCH, Bankura wherefrom he was shifted to Anamoy Nursing Home, Bankura and treated there since 04/02/2016 to 11/02/2016 for which he incurred medical expenses of Rs.67,408/-. On 09/02/2016 the O.P.1, Owner of the Ambulance, lodged the FIR vide Bankura P.S. Case No.35/2016, dated: 09/02/2016 u/s 279 / 338 / 427 IPC. The Policy of the Ambulance No. being OG-16-2461-1811-00000501 insured with O.P.2 was valid from 01/12/2015 to 30/11/2016 covering legal liability for operation / maintenance of the Driver. The Driver of the Ambulance has therefore lodged the instant complaint against O.P.1 i.e. Owner of the vehicle and O.P.2 Insurance Co. for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.67,408/- with compensation.

                                                                                                                                                                                         Contd……p/2

                                                                                                                  Page: 2

O.P. 1 contested the case by filing a written version denying the Complainant’s case but admitting his employment on salary basis with O.P.1. The O.P.1 has however prayed for dismissal of the case.

O.P.2 Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version denying the Complainant’s case and contending inter alia that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as he failed to produce his valid Driving License after several requests from the Insurance Co. and thus prayed for dismissal of the claim.

-: Decision with reasons: -

It is a peculiar case that the Driver of the victim Ambulance has come forward before this Commission claiming reimbursement of medical expenses for his own treatment whereas the Owner of the Ambulance at whose name the Insurance Policy stands has refuted the claim of the Complainant. The stand of the O.P.2 Insurance Co.is that the Policy coverage cannot be extended to the Complainant Driver because of the non-production of Driving License at the time of accident and his further contention is that the claim application is not maintainable before this Commission as he has a remedy under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

The Commission has examined the Policy document which shows that there is coverage of the Policy i.e. legal liability for operation / maintenance for one person and according to the Complainant this Policy coverage should be extended to the employed Driver but the Ld. Advocate for the Insurance Co. diferred with the same. Main focus of contention of the Ld. Advocate for the Insurance Co. is that the accident took place on 03/02/2016 but the Driving License of the Complainant as referred to in Para-2 of the complaint was issued on 10/01/2013 and lastly renewed on 09/01/2016 and no Driving License was produced showing its validity as on the date of accident i.e. on 03/02/2016 which amounts to breach of the Policy and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation in this case.

It is no doubt true that the instant case is based on First Party Insurance where the Complainant being the Driver is a beneficiary and so the Complainant has locus standi to lodge the instant complaint as a beneficiary Consumer within the definition of Consumer u/s 2 (7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Owner of the Ambulance i.e. O.P.1 and the Complainant Driver have the option to prefer claim application before the competent Workmen Tribunal under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 but the Complainant Driver without doing so has come before this Commission claiming reimbursement of medical expenses for his own treatment as a beneficiary of the Policy Holder / Consumer. This Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint in view of Section-100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd…….p/3

Page: 3

The Commission has to examine whether there has been any breach of the Policy condition such as non-production of valid Driving License of the Complainant Driver. Though the Driving License as referred to in the petition of complaint was not produced at the time of hearing but the application for the renewal of the said Driving License before the Office of the District Magistrate, Bankura in prescribed form No.9 has been produced on behalf of the Complainant which shows that the Driving License was issued on 10/01/2013 and last renewed on 09/01/2016.

In view of Section-15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  the application for the renewal of Driving License having been made on 21/01/2016  is made within 30 days from its expiry on 09/01/2016 the same shall be renewed from the date of expiry i.e. with effect from 09/01/2016 and so it can be safely inferred that the Complainant Driver was in possession of a valid Driving License as on the date of accident i.e. on 03/02/2016.

At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate appearing for the Complainant has however produced the computerized Driving License of the Complainant Driver which is shown to have been issued on 10/01/2013 and valid till 01-08-2033. So there is no ambiguity in the mind of the Commission regarding the validity of the Driving License of the Complainant Driver.

Opposition by the Policy Holder / Owner of the Ambulance cannot in any way dislodge the claim of the Complainant Driver when he is otherwise entitled to get the relief as prayed for in view of the legal position stated above. The medical reimbursement bills of Rs.67,408/- are on record supporting the claim of the Complainant and the Commission has nothing to doubt the veracity of any of the medical bills.

The case therefore succeeds.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against both O.P.s but without cost.

O.P.2 is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.70,000/- as a whole within one month from this date in default the law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

____________________                _________________          _________________

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT          HON’BLE MEMBER        HON’BLE MEMBER