- Md. Salam Khan,
N-33/34, C.P.T. Quarter,
Taratalla Road, Kolkata-78._________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The Deputy Manager,
Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd.
6A, Middleton Street, Kolkata-71.
- Cholamandalam Investment and
Finance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor,
32, Chowringhee Road,
Kolkata-71, P.S. New Market.________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sambhunath Chatterjee, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 31 Dated 24-08-2016.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one TATA LPT 407 and availed a loan facility of Rs.5,28,000/- and the said vehicle was insured with the o.ps. On 17.2.12 the said vehicle met with an accident and the vehicle was shifted to Bibhas Motor Garage as per the instruction of o.ps. and the garage provided an estimate of Rs.3,03,906/-. The o.ps. paid as part payment of Rs.1,20,000/-. Subsequently one Mr. Kallol informed the complainant that the cheque was not signed by authorized person and the cheque was taken away with the assurance that a fresh cheque will be given to the complainant. Whenever it was found after 3-4 days that the complainant requested Mr. Kallol to provide the cheque and that time Mr. Kallol informed that the driving license of the complainant’s driver Subhas Shaw was found forged. On 5.7.12 the complainant was informed that the Transport Deptt. after verification found that the driving license of Subhas Shaw was authentic.
Subsequently the complainant demanded the amount from o.ps. on 9.7.12 demanding the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards part payment of the repairing of the damage. Since no reply was given from the end of o.ps. the complainant had no other alternative but to file the case praying for Rs.3,03,900/- towards the repairing charges and loss of business of Rs.3,10,000/-, Rs.2 lakhs for loss of future business, total in Rs.9,63,906/-. Complainant further prayed for Rs.25,000/- towards cost.
The o.ps. contested the case by filing w/v denied all the material allegations of the complaint and stated that the case is not maintainable. It was admitted by o.ps. that the policy being no.3379/00598152/000/00 was issued in favour of the complainant and it was also admitted that the accident took place on 17.2.12 for which the vehicle was damaged. The complainant filed the claim from o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 appointed IRDA licensed independent surveyor namely Mr. Kallol to assess the loss. The liability of the o.p. subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the policy. Further any breach of conditions shall entitle to o.p. to avoid the liability. It was specifically stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
The o.p. no.2 in the w/v stated that on the basis of fake license the vehicle was driven by the driver at the relevant point of time, as such, o.p. no.2 also prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the materials on record the following points are to be decided:
- Was the vehicle insured that o.ps.
- Whether the driver of the vehicle had valid license.
- Whether the complainant violated the terms and condition s of the policy.
- Whether the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant took the loan from the bank and as per the bank direction the vehicle was insured with o.ps. Due to an accident on 17.2.12 the vehicle was damaged extensively and as per the approve garage of the insurance company the vehicle was sent to the said garage and assessment was made for repairing of the vehicle an amount of Rs.3,03,906/- was estimated which was informed to o.p. no.2 and accordingly a cheque was issued of Rs.1,20,000/- but the said cheque was taken away from the complainant with assurance that the authorized signatory has not signed the cheque. After getting back the cheque o.ps. in spite of expiry of several days did not hand over the cheque for which the complainant had to issue a notice and subsequently filed this case. Ld. lawyer further emphasized that there was gross violation of the deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. for which the complainant had to file this case praying for relief.
Ld. lawyer for o.ps. argued that the o.ps. withheld the cheque because of the fact that on scrutiny of the scrutiny of the license of the driver it was found that the driving license of the driver of the said vehicle was fake. As such, there was no choice on the part of the o.ps. but to repudiate the claim.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company which has not been denied by o.ps. and it is also an admitted fact that due to an accident the vehicle got damaged which has also not been challenged by o.ps. From the said materials on record it is found that the vehicle which was insured with o.ps. met with an accident on 17.2.12 and the vehicle was sent to garage for repairing and assessment was made regarding cost for repairing of the said damaged vehicle and the claim was made by the complainant to o.p. no.2 praying for the amount to be paid for repairing of the said vehicle. The o.p. no.2 in the w/v as well as in their evidence candidly stated that the insurance company is not liable to pay the damage caused to the insured if the terms and conditions of the policy is valid. Here in this case the o.p. no.2 claimed that after the said accident a surveyor was appointed and surveyor’s report has also been annexed and during the enquiry it was detected that the motor driving license in respect of DL Registration No.WB 19/136853 was issued in the name of one Mukesh Kumar, S/o R. Shah of 250, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata-6. The said enquiry was made from the Regional Transport Office, Alipore, South 24 Parganas and on the basis of the said fact repudiation of the claim was made by the insurance complain. In the claim of the repudiation note the insurance company stated that actual driver at the time of loss Subhas Shaw license no.WB 19/136853 as per the claim made by the complainant, but on scrutiny from the department it was found that the said license stood in the name of Mukesh Kumar as per the information provided by Regional Transport Office, Alipore. Since the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy therefore the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any material to allow the case of the complainant.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.519/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
