Consumer Complaint No 59 of 2012
Date of filing: 11.4.2012 Date of disposal: 28.11.2014
Complainant: Bidyut Lata Mohanta, W/o. Surya Kanta Mohanta, Bud Bud, near UCO Bank, PO: & PS: Budbud, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 403.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Sub Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, 8 India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 700 001.
2. Sr. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, 8 India Exchange Place, Kolkata – 700 001.
3. The Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Ltd., G.T.Road, Durgapur – 3.
4. The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., PO: & PS: Panagarh, District: Burdwan.
5. The Licensing Authority Officer, Office of the District Magistrate, Burdwan.
6. Mr. Amalendu Basu, Surveyor/Loss Assessor, Snejuti, Baranilpur, Aryyapally, PO: Sripally, Burdwan – 3.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder
Hon’ble Member: Sri Durga Sankar Das
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sougata Pal.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Ld. Advocate, Ahi Bhusan De.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3: Ld. Advocate, Titas Choudhury.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 5: Sri Rathi Ranjan Gupta, M.V.I. (T).
JUDGEMENT
This complaint has been filed by one Bidyut Lata Mohanta, w/o. Surya Kanta Mohanta against Sub-Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata-OP-1, Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata - OP-2, the Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Ltd., Durgapur – OP-3, the Licensing Authority, office of the district Magistrate, Burdwan – OP-4 and Mr. Amalendu Basu, surveyor/Loss Assessor, Burdwan – OP-5. The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows:
1
The complainant is an owner of a vehicle Tata ACE 275/D/BS-II being no. WB 41D-0851 and was insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd. The said vehicle was plied by her appointed driver Sri Samar Bhuminch for the purpose of transporting goods on hire. The said vehicle met with an accident on 02.01.2009 at about 2:30 pm near Bankura and one G.D. was lodged before the I.C. Bankura Sadar Police Station and one M.A. Case No. 01 of 2009 was registered before the district Judges Court at Bankura by the I.C. of Bankura Sadar Police Station. On 22.9.2010 one Loss Assessor/Surveyor, namely, Mr. Amalendu Basu of National Insurance Co. Ltd. assessed the loss and submitted the report before the Senior Divisional Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. The OP-1 rejected the claim by a letter dated 05.8.2009 showing the cause that the driving license of the driver of the said vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. The complainant verified the license on 17.8.2009 before the licensing authority, Burdwan who issued a certificate that the driving license is valid up to 04.6.2012. After the accident complainant spent Rs. 29,800=00 for repairing the said vehicle. The complainant sent legal notice through her legal advisor to the Insurance Company. Though her claim was valid but the OP-1 to OP-4 deliberately, maliciously, intentionally rejected her valid claim for which she is entitled to get compensation from the Ops. The complainant has claims relief as under:
- To direct the Ops to pay Rs. 29,800=00 with interest from the date of accident which has been paid by the complainant for repairing the insured vehicle,
- To direct the Ops to pay Rs. 1,00,000=00 towards compensation for mental agony and harassment,
- To grant cost of the proceeding.
OP-2 has contested the case by filing written version denying the entire allegations made against it in the petition of complaint. The OP-2 further submitted that it had issued the policy for the period from 02.5.2008 to 01.5.2009 in favour of the complainant in respect of the alleged vehicle with certain terms and conditions amongst other that the person driving the vehicle holds an effective Driving License at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such license. In this particular case the alleged driver of the vehicle was in possession of license No. WB-41-014393, allegedly issued by the Licensing Authority, Burdwan which was not valid at the material time of alleged accident on 02.01.2009. It appears from the seizure list dated 02.01.2009 submitted by the complainant in this case, it appears that the said DL is valid up to 03.4.2009. But after verification of the said DL from the Licensing Authority, Burdwan, it has come to learn that the said DL was valid up to 13.7.2007 and as such the said DL was not valid at the material time of alleged accident and as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated by this OP on the ground that
2
the “Driving License of the driver of the vehicle was not valid on the date of accident” and informed its decision to the complainant by treating the claim as no-claim. The OP-2 further stated that the complainant has annexed an alleged DL of Smart Card to show that the DL was valid at the time of alleged accident. Be it mentioned that when the DL is converted to Smart Card and then verified from Licensing authority, then in that case, always the previous DL Number along with the New Smart Card number is mentioned, but in this case only the alleged new number is mentioned and as such the DL as annexed with the complaint cannot be treated as same and identical. The OP-2 further submitted that this OP cannot be held liable to pay any compensation on account of damages of Tractor, as the same was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As the driver did not possess valid DL at the time of accident as such the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant which is legal, valid and according to law and is binding upon the Insured/Complainant. The OP-2 cannot entertain any claim beyond terms, conditions, definitions and exclusions of the policy issued by this OP and the OP also shall not be liable for payment of claim when the claim is beyond the terms, conditions and exceptions. It has no deficiency in service or negligence within the scope of C. P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is liable to be summarily dismissed with cost.
OP-3 has also contested the case by filing separate written version stating that it is financial institution having head office at Magma House, Kolkata and having its branches at various places throughout the country and the motto of the company is to provide financial assistance to the various peoples/ institutions by way of hire purchase and/or lease and/or loan facility. The complainant has not hired or availed of any service from the OP-3 for which he has suffered any deficiency in any respect. The complainant is a debtor and the OP-3 is a creditor and the relationship between the parties is that of debtor and creditor which is the outside the scope of the purview of the C.P. Act. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Ld. Forum.
OP has submitted documents like original letter given by the Surveyor & Loss Assessor dated 08.7.2009, original particulars of driving license no. WB-41-014393 issued by Licensing authority, Burdwan dated 28.6.2009 and complainant has submitted Xerox copy of policy papers, registration certificate of vehicle, motor claim form, seizure list showing driving license valid up to 03.4.2009, Xerox copy of driving license showing validity up to 03.4.2009, Xerox copy of verification report issued by Licensing Authority, Burdwan and claim repudiation letter dated 05.8.2009 and some Rulings reported in VI (2013) CPJ (NC), VI (2013) CPJ 1 (NC), III (2013) CPJ 506 (NC), II (2013) CPJ 495 (NC) & I (2013) CPJ 635 (NC).
3
In this connection OP-5, i.e. Licensing Authority, Burdwan was called for to give his evidence on 02.4.2014. In his statement it is stated that license dated 17.8.2009 was issued from the office of the RTA where the old driving license number is not mentioned but old manual extract of driving license is matched with extract of computerized driving license dated 31.3.2014. During cross-examination he has further stated that driving license in the name of Samar Bhuminch was issued on 04.7.1970 and the validity period was 04.6.2012 in the category of transport and category of non-transport was valid till 04.6.2014. From the documents of seizure list submitted by complainant that one driving license was ceased which was valid up to 03.4.2009 bearing no. WB-41-014393 in the name of Samar Bhuminch. Stress is given on the driving license which the driver was carrying and ceased by Police Authority where the driving license has shown its validity up to 03.4.2009 and nothing adverse is detected in the statement of RTA i.e. OP-5 in this respect. Although OP-5 has opined that old one cannot be treated as license. In his statement OP-5 has stated that although there is some anomaly and dispute regarding their system and process of issuing and conformity of the entire license. But it is specifically mentioned that the driving license as ceased and submitted by the complainant was valid on the date of accident i.e. on 02.01.2009. The issue is whether the driving license which the driver was carrying while driving the vehicle and ceased as per seizure list was valid or not. The answer is ‘yes’. Other anomalies as detected as per statement of RTA and subsequent cross-examination is technical matters and outside the claim of the complainant. In the repudiation letter OP i.e. National Insurance Company Limited has repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim is not supported by valid documents/information and the driving license of the driver of the vehicle was not valid on the date of accident. This stand of the OP is not proved as OP-5 has categorically stated that the driving license was valid up to 04.6.2012 i.e. on the date of accident it was valid as mentioned in the seizure list also. With regard to the abovementioned Rulings filed by the OP we are to say that the said rulings are not at all corroborating the fact in the case in hand. Accordingly, it is hold that the case of the complainant stands.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the petition of complaint is allowed in part on contest. The OP. No. 1, 2 & 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 29,800=00 either jointly or severally to the complainant as repairing charges due to accident for the said insured vehicle along with interest @9% per annum from 05.8.2009 i.e. from the date of repudiation of the claim within 45 days
4
from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the entire amount (Rs. 29,800 + interest) will carry penal interest @12% for the default period. The OP. No. 1, 2 & 4 are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000=00 either jointly or severally to the complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 2,000=00 within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put this order into execution as per provisions of law.
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Durga Sankar Das)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Durga Sankar Das)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
