This case has arisen out of an application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of vehicle (bus) bearing No:WB59/6577, insured with O.P vide Policy No:51300231210100001532 valid from 13.08.2021 to 12.08.2022.
That on 10.02.2022 at about 8:30 p.m at Baghan Battali while said bus was coming from Kaliyaganj to Raiganj, suddenly two cycle rider came infront of said vehicle and the driver of said vehicle/bus stopped by pushing break and dashed two cycle rider and they were seriously injured and petitioner’s bus was seriously damaged and Kaliyaganj P.S Case No:88/22 dated 12.02.2022 (GR No:422/22) was registered for the said accident which is pending before CJM, Uttar Dinajpur.
That immediate after said incident on 14.02.2022 the matter was reported to the O.P by a written letter, thereafter petitioner repaired said bus from Maa Manasa Body Builder, Uttar Dinajpur on spending Rs.83,600/-. He sent claim with challan and bill but the O.P sent a letter dated 31.08.2022 to petitioner stating that “driver’s DL was invalid at the material time of accident” and thereby repudiated petitioner’s claim which is illegal & due to O.P’s negligent act petitioner suffered financial loss, mental pain and agony, so he prays for a sum of Rs.83,600/- for repairing cost of the vehicle, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
O.P contested the case by filing W.V admitting petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle/bus and insurance coverage with O.P, denying that the driver of the vehicle had no valid and effective DL at the material time of the accident and thereby violated provisions of Motor Vehicle Act & Insurance Policy conditions, so O.P repudiated petitioner’s claim and there was no negligent act on the part of the O.P and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration is:-
- Whether there was any negligent act on the part of the O.P which gives rise cause of action to file the complaint and the petitioner is entitled to get the claim?
D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s
Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of vehicle (bus) bearing No:WB59/6577, insured with O.P vide Policy No:51300231210100001532 valid from 13.08.2021 to 12.08.2022 as a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy.
The case & evidence of the petitioner is that on 10.02.2022 at about 8:30 p.m at Baghan Battali while said bus was coming from Kaliyaganj to Raiganj, suddenly two cycle rider came in front of said vehicle and the driver of said vehicle/bus stopped by pushing break and dashed two cycle rider and they were seriously injured and petitioner’s bus was seriously damaged and Kaliyaganj P.S Case No:88/22 dated 12.02.2022 (GR No:422/22) was registered for the said accident which is pending before CJM, Uttar Dinajpur.
Further case and evidence of the petitioner is that immediate after said incident on 14.02.2022 the matter was reported to the O.P by a written letter, thereafter petitioner repaired said bus from Maa Manasa Body Builder, Uttar Dinajpur on spending Rs.83,600/- & he sent claim with challan and bill but the O.P sent a letter dated 31.08.2022 to petitioner stating that “driver’s DL was invalid at the material time of accident” and thereby repudiated petitioner’s claim.
It is not denied by the O.P but according to O.P the complainant did not furnish required documents in regard to the accident dated 10.02.2022 but O.P duly registered the claim upon intimation from the petitioner and deputed a Surveyor to assess the damaged vehicle & also investigate incident in details. The report of Surveyor is not produced by the O.P.
Mr. P.D.Bhutia, the Licensing Authority, Uttar Dinajpur, RTO, M.V.Department, Govt. of West Bengal, has been examined as P.W.2 who submit documents & deposed that Pradip Kr. Kundu (driver of petitioner’s bus) applied online for renewal of his DL on 22.12.2021 & deposited required fees on 24.12.2021 with the office of P.W.2 and his license was renewed valid from 11.02.2022 to 10.02.2027. In cross-examination he stated that from the documents produced by him he can say that on 10.02.2022 Pradip Kr. Kundu was holding a valid DL.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the opinion that for due application of renewal of DL & deposit of fees well in advance Pradip Kr. Kundu (driver of petitioner’s bus) was holding valid and effective DL on the date of accident dated 10.02.2022, consequently the repudiation on that sole ground found illegal and the petitioner is entitled to get the cost of repair of damaged vehicle amounting to Rs.83,600/-, but as petitioner did not provide copy of online application and fees deposit receipt to the O.P, either in course of investigation or before repudiation, the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount as compensation and we find litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- will be adequate.
In the result the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-65/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P with cost.
We do direct O.P to pay Rs.83,600/- for repairing cost & Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost to the petitioner within 01 month from the date of the order i.d it shall carry interest @6% pa till realization in full & the petitioner is at liberty to take due course of Law.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
