Tripura

West Tripura

CC-14/75

Sri Dipen Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Utttam Kr. Majumdar

22 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 75 of 2014

Dipan Das,
S/O- Tarani Kumar Das,
Rambhaktapara, Debendranagar, 
P.S. Jirania, West Tripura.    ............Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

Sr. Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office, Agartala,
West Tripura.            .........Opposite parties.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         :  Mr. Uttam Kumar Majumdar,
                  Advocate.
                           
For the Opposite parties    :  Mr. Basudev Chakraborty,
                   Advocate.                  

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 22.05.15

J U D G M E N T
        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Dipan Das of village Rambhaktapara, P.S. Jirania, West Tripura against the O.P. namely, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office; Agartala, West Tripura over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
    
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No- TR 01 W 1614 (TATA ACE HT) and it was duly insured with the O.P. Insurance Company with policy No- 322700/31/2013/18203  covering the period from 30.01.13 to 27.01.14. On 27.05.13 in the morning when the said vehicle on way to Ranir Bazar reached Harijaychoudhury para under Ranir Bazar Police station, a speeding truck bearing registration No- TRL 3615 coming from opposite direction collided with the complainant's vehicle head on coming on the wrong side of the road. As a result, the complainant's vehicle got badly damaged. Soon after the accident, he lodged an F.I.R. with the Ranir Bazar Police station. He also informed the O.P. Insurance Company as to the accident. Upon receipt of the information about the accident, the O.P. Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the damage suffered by the subject vehicle. On completion of enquiry, the surveyor submitted his report to the O.P. Insurance company. On 11.02.14 he was surprised to receive a letter dated 11.02.14 from the O.P. Insurance company whereby his claim was repudiated on the ground that his vehicle being a light motor vehicle the driver was not authorized to drive transport goods vehicle as he was having driving license to drive M.C,LMV(NT),LMV(CAB) and LNB(TSR) vehicles. The complainant met the O.P. to reconsider his case but it yielded no results. It is alleged that  at the time of taking  package policy of insurance from the O.P. Insurance Company it was never disclosed to him that as per 'driver's clause' the person having driving license to drive a light motor vehicle was not authorized to drive transport goods vehicle. According to the complainant, the O.P. Insurance Company illegally and arbitrarily repudiated his claim and thus the conduct of the O.Ps constitutes negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.P. Insurance company by filing written objection. The O.P. resisted the claim of the complainant on the sole ground that the driver who was driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident was having light motor vehicle non transport driving license and, therefore, he was not authorized to drive light motor vehicle transport goods. According to the O.P., the complainant being owner of the vehicle violated the terms  of policy of insurance by allowing the driver to drive transport vehicle having driving license of light motor vehicle. So, the O.P. did no illegality by repudiating the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the O.P. was guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service.

4.        In support of the claim, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited 22 sheets of documents filed on 24.09.14 with firisti as Exhibit- 1 Series.  

5.        On the other hand, one Sri Goutam Bhowmik, Senior Assistant of the O.P. Insurance company has examined himself as O.P.W. 1  and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit A- Certificate of Registration with screen report,
    Exhibit B- Driving license,
    Exhibit C- Copy of Policy of Insurance,
    Exhibit D Series- Letters dated 11.02.14 and 31.03.14,
    Exhibit E- Report of the surveyor.
FINDINGS:
6.        The points that would arise for consideration in this case are:
        (i) Whether the O.P. Insurance company illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant by a letter dated 11.02.14 (Exhibit- D Series);
        (ii) Whether the O.P. was guilty of negligence and deficiency in service. If so, whether the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps.

7.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

8.        There is no dispute on the fact that as a result of accident, which occurred on 27.05.13 at Harijaychoudhury para under Ranir Bazar Police station, the vehicle bearing registration No-TR 01 W 1614 got badly damaged. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time of accident the vehicle was under the coverage of package policy of insurance with the O.P. Insurance company with IDV of Rs.4,27,870/-. It is also an admitted fact that soon after getting information from the complainant about the accident, a surveyor was appointed by the O.P. Insurance company to assess the  quantum of  damage suffered by the subject vehicle. During the course of enquiry, the surveyor assessed the damage of the vehicle by adopting 2 methods – one as repair basis and another as total loss basis. By the first method, the quantum of damage was assessed at Rs.3,64,605/-and by the second one the damage was assessed at Rs.4,27,370/-. On completion of enquiry, the surveyor submitted his report (Exhibit-E) to the O.P. Insurance company on 1st December, 2013. The contention of the complainant as to the extent of damage suffered by the subject vehicle has also received support from the report of the surveyor which also indicates that due to accident the vehicle got extensively damaged. 
        
9.        It is seen that on an F.I.R. lodged by the complainant with the Ranir Bazar police station a case was registered bearing  Ranir Bazar P.S. case No-24/13 u/s 279/338 IPC. On completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending truck bearing registration No- TRL 3615 attributing negligence for the cause of accident. From the police  investigation report, primafacie, it is apparent that the driver of the subject vehicle was not at fault for the accident.

10.        It appears that the O.P. Insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant by a letter dated 11.12.14 (Exhibit- D Series) on the sole ground that the subject vehicle was a LGV (TATA ACE HT) i.e.,  light motor vehicle transport goods but the driver who drove the vehicle was authorized to drive the MC, LMV, LMV(CAB) and LMV(TSR) vehicle not the transport goods vehicle. Hence, it is a violation of driver's clause as per norms of policy condition which resulted in repudiation of the claim. 

11.        The only question arises for consideration in this case is that can an Insurance company disown its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle although duly licensed to drive light motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the license to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle. It is well settled that the vehicle should not be driven by a person who is not duly licensed and in that case the insurance company can not be held to be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

12.        In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Swaran Singh and Ors (2004) 3 SCC 297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that '' if a person has been given license for a particular type of vehicle as specified therein, he can not be said to have no license for driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of different type. As for example, when a person is granted license for driving light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep or it is not necessary that he must have driving license both for car and jeep separately.''

13.        In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Ors., 2008(3) SCC 464, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ''a driver who had a valid license to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well.'' 

14.        It is advantageous here to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No- 4834 of 2013 (S. Iyyapan Vrs. M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd.) decided on 1st July, 2013 wherein it is held that ''in the instant case, admittedly the driver was held a valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxicab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving license to drive Mahimdra Maxicab which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed a grab error of law holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle.''
    
15.        Relying upon the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case laws, we are of the considered opinion that the driver who drove the vehicle in question at the time of accident having valid driving license for driving a light motor vehicle was also authorized to a drive a light commercial vehicle as well. That being so, the O.P. Insurance company committed error by not paying compensation to the complainant for the damage sustained by the subject vehicle due to accident. It is needless to say that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant without justifiable cause certainly amounts to deficiency in service. 

16.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.P. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office; Agartala is directed to pay Rs.4,27,370/-, which was worked out by the surveyor as total loss basis, to the complainant towards the damage / loss sustained by the vehicle in question within 6(six) weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of presentation of the complaint before this Forum on 24.09.14 till the payment is made. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment with Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) as costs of litigation.

17.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 
SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.