DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC - 109   of   2017

 

Sri Gangaram  Verma,

S/O- Lt. Thanmall Verma,

N.H. 44, Birendranagar, 

Jirania,P.S. Jirania,

District- West Tripura. …..….…...Complainant.

 

       VERSUS     

 

      1. The Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

44/2, Central Road, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura.

 

      2. Smt. Namita Saha,

W/O- Sri Sanjoy Kr. Saha,

Netaji Nagar, P.S Bisalgarh, 

District- Shipahijala. ............ Opposite Parties.

 

 

 __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Tapas Kumar Deb,

  Sri Debabrata De,     Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps : Sri P. Goutam,

  Sri Sumit Debnath,

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   11.12.2017.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

  This case arises on the petition filed by one Gangaram Verma U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 25.09.15 his truck TR 01 N 1847 (Petrol Tanker) while proceeding towards Dharmanagar met with accident at Ambassa by collision with a truck and was damaged by such accident. The matter of accident was informed to the insurance company. Thereafter petitioner arranged the repairing of the damage truck and claimed the compensation but his claim for compensation was denied on the ground that driving license of his driver was fake as it was issued from Manipur. Petitioner insisted that it was genuine. But his claim was denied. Petitioner, therefore, filed this prayer for deficiency of service of the opposite parties and claimed compensation amounting to Rs.4,14,049/- with 12% interest. 

 

2. O.P. appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is  contended that driving license submitted in favour of the driver Inbungo Singh at the time of accident, as per  information of their investigator was not matching with the DTO court of Manipur. License was found fake. Sufficient opportunity was given to the complainant for production of valid driving license but the complainant failed. So the claim was rightly repudiated. There was no deficiency of service.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped for determination;

(I) Whether the driving license was found fake and the claim was rightly repudiated?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get repairing cost and compensation  for deficiency of service of the opposite party?

 

4. Petitioner produced the FIR, Driving License, copy of Insurance policy, Letter, Claim Statement, Statement of the owner of the vehicle of the vehicle.

 

5. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of Gangaram Verma  i.e., the petitioner.

 

6. O.P. on the other hand produced the letters addressed to the complainant and also the statement on affidavit of Goutam Banik, Assistant Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 

 

7. On the basis of all these evidences we shall now determine the above points.

Findings and decision:

8. We have gone through the policy documents and found that the policy was valid from 27.01.15 to the mid night of 26.01.16, accident occurred on 25.09.15, within the validity period. It is also not denied by the opposite party. The fact that the policy covered own damage also not denied. Gangaram Verma was the owner and limit of coverage was Rs.4,50,000/- as per policy for own damage. 

 

9. Petitioner in his evidence stated that he claimed the repairing cost Rs.2,14,049/- but his claim was denied. Petitioner in the evidence stated that he pursued the Motor Vehicle Office, Manipur as to whether the driving license of the driver, Ibungo Singh for the oil tanker issued by the issuing authority, Manipur was genuine or not. He was confirmed from the office that the driving license issued by the issuing authority of Motor Vehicle Office, Manipur was genuine and there is no doubt about this authenticity. 

10. O.P.W. Goutam Banik Assistant Manager, on the other hand stated that complainant utterly failed to submit valid license.

 

11. We have gone through the copy of driving license as produced by the complainant. It is Indian Union driving license issued in the name of Ibango Singha. It was issued on 11.07.13 and valid up to 23.01.18. Why it was considered fake not clearly stated by O.P. in the written statement it is only stated that investigator reported that DTO did not match. But that investigation report of the investigator or licensing authority not produced to support as evidence. When the O.P. raised this contention then burden lies on him that driving license was fake one. Petitioner insisted that it was genuine so he could not produce another driving license for the driver who drove the vehicle and informed it accordingly but O.P. admittedly closed the claim  on the ground that it was considered as '' No claim''. 

 

12. Learned counsel for O.P. Insurance company referred the decision of the Supreme Court  published in 2008 AIR SCW 880. In that case our Apex court held that when the driver operating the vehicle had no valid driving license then liability could not be saddle on Insurance company. In the same decision our Supreme Court in Para- 24 held that ''In the background of statutory provisions, one thing is crystal clear i.e.,  the statute is beneficial one qua the 3rd party. But that benefit can not be extended to the offending vehicle. The logic of fake license has to be considered differently in respect  third party and in respect of own damage claims.''  

 

13. It is a case of own damage claim. So it is to be differently considered as per decision of the supreme Court. The O.P. repudiated the claim on the ground  that the driving license was fake but failed to prove with convincing evidence that actually the license was fake. Petitioner produced claim statement in time produced all the documents including FIR, driving license other papers of the vehicle. 

 

14. We have gone through the FIR, claim statement, letters, driving license, statement of owner of the vehicle of Insurance Policy. After perusal of such documents and evidence we consider that the Oriental Insurance company should have appointed a surveyor for assessing the damage after receiving information about the damage of the vehicle but it was not done but the Insurance company questioned about the genuineness of the driving license and repudiated the claim. This is deficiency of service by the Insurance company. 

 

15. Petitioner stated that for repairing of the vehicle they have to spent Rs.2,14,049/- but no papers submitted before us to justify such claim whether the amount was spent or not not clear. Unless the papers are submitted we can not support such claim. Actual damage is to be supported by sufficient documents. We therefore, direct the complainant to place sufficient document before the Insurance company to claim the amount in support of expenditure in respect of repairing of the vehicle. Insurance company is to pay the same after satisfaction within coverage. There was deficiency of service by the Insurance company. For that deficiency of service complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/-. Cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- in total Rs.55,000/- . In addition Insurance company is to pay the actual cost of repairing  with in the policy coverage.      

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.