Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he is the owner of a vehicle being No.WB – 03B – 6435 and the said vehicle was insured under the present Insurance company with valid Insurance Policy and practically the said vehicle was registered with the registration authority as a light vehicle.  But the said vehicle met with an accident and accordingly was damaged which was reported to the op and accordingly op Insurance Co. appointed one surveyor who assessed the loss or damage and vehicle was brought to the authorized service centre namely Patna Body Builders and the said vehicle was repaired and the complainant had to pay Rs.65,000/- for such repairing and reimburse such final claim and then complainant submitted his claim to the Insurance Co. who on receipt of the same denied the claim vide their letter dated 11.11.2011 on the ground that the driver of the said vehicle did not possess the valid license for driving of the said vehicle.

          But complainant has alleged that the driver namely Tripurari Sinha who possessed the driving license for driving light medium vehicle (LMV).  But it is principle of law that even the driver does not possess the valid license for the driving of the vehicle the owner cannot be deprived from getting claim out of the damages or loss incurred and arising out of Insured Vehicle which covers the policy issued by the Insurance Company.

          But fact remains that the complainant requested the op to pay the claim but op denied and in negligent and deficient manner rejected the claim for which the complainant has prayed for proper redressal against the op.

          On the contrary Insurance Company by filing written version submitted that complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the op and further both the parties of this case are guided by the terms and conditions of the policy which must be strictly construed legally and complainant being a party to contract is also bonded by the terms and conditions as laid down in the contract.  But op has further submitted that as because driver had been holding the light motor vehicle license without endorsement of authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle, the owner of the vehicle is not entitled to get a claim from the insurer.  It is admitted that the complainant submitted the insurance claim to the extent of Rs.65,000/- but after careful examination and scrutiniastion of the claim, the claim was denied vide letter dated 11.11.2011 on the ground that the alleged driver of the said vehicle did not posses valid license at the time of driving the alleged vehicle and as per terms and conditions of the policy it has been clearly stated that the claim is not payable where the driver does not possess a valid license in course of such driving of a vehicle.

          Further it was submitted that Patna Body Builders is not an authorized service centre and for which the bill of the said Patna Body Builders is not at all correct and without any verification the genuinity of the document no claim can be settled.  So, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the case.

                                                   Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the status of the damage vehicle being No. WB-03B-6435 , it is found that said vehicle is TATA 709 (LMV) and it is admitted by the op that the vehicle was TATA 709 (LMV) and undisputed fact is that complainant submitted driving license of Tripurari Sinha the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident and admitted position is that Tripurari Singh had his valid driving license to drive light motor vehicles and in the present case it is found that vehicle which faced accident was TATA 709 (LMV).  So, it is clear that complainant’s driver Tripurari Singh had his valid driving license.

          Fact remains that complainant submitted his claim regarding his damage and insurance company appointed one surveyor to assess the loss.  But insurance company rejected the claim on the ground that Tripurari Singh was possessing driving licence No.WB-01-2009 678185 and that was for driving light motor vehicle.  But insurance company rejected the claim stating that Tripurari Singh was not authorized to drive transport vehicle and that was the only ground for rejecting the claim.  But after considering the entire fact and also the status of the vehicle which faced accident we are confirmed that it was TATA 709 which is a light motor vehicle and as per insurance policy terms and conditions it is specifically mentioned that driver must have valid driving license at the time of accident or incident and in this case it is found that driver had his valid driving license might be it was for light motor vehicle but that is not legal to reject the claim by the op.  But after considering the materials we have gathered that complainant no doubt repaired the same without the consent of the insurance company and or surveyor’s consent and at the same time the said Patna Body Builders have no lincence from any authority and moreover the repairing was made without the consent of the op which is fact because op has challenged that matter.

          Further fact is that no detailed bill was submitted by the complainant along with the insurance claim.  Moreover from the seizure list of Polba Police Station Case No.42/2011 dated 23.06.2011 it is found that vehicle was seized by the police but no MVI check up was made by the police to determine the actual damage, no report of MVI was also filed by the op.  So, considering all the above facts we are convinced to hold that in fact complainant suppressed some materials aspect of the damaged vehicle and for that reason complainant without the notice of the op, without the written permission of the surveyor repaired the same and submitted one receipt of Patna Body Builders who received Rs.65,000/-.  But no detailed bill was submitted.  So considering that we have gathered that complainant suppressed material fact and avoided the insurance company initially and by adopting that process somehow or otherwise he claimed Rs.65,000/-, but basis of claim of Rs.65,000/- as claimed is not substantiate by detailed bill not even at the time of advancement of argument through complainant was asked to produce detailed bill but that was no submitted and in the above circumstances and also considering the validity of the insurance policy, we are releasing Rs.40,000/- as repaired charge that is final assessed loss only to give some relief to the complainant but further on the ground that complainant has failed to prove the consent of the surveyor and the op regarding repairing the said vehicle and has also failed to produce the MVI report prior to release of the vehicle from Polba Police Station and all these documents were not produced on the ground same had not been granted by the respective authorities and the very complaint also speaks that complainant suppressed all those papers for which nothing is mentioned in the complaint about police case about the release of the same from police custody as per order of the Ld. Magistrate after MVI inspection report.

          In the result, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is released in favour of the complainant only to give some relief to the complainant though complainant has not appeared before this Forum with clean hand and further fact is that this complainant at the time of argument submitted another driving license of one Jagadish Mahata to prove that he was the driver of the said vehicle.  But after scrutiny said driving license was found invalid.  However, we have already considering the earlier driving license allowed this complaint in part.

          Hence, it is

                                                        ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- against the op.

          Op is directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as final settled claim against the claim made by the complainant to the op within one month from the date of this order failing which op shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the same but said amount shall be paid to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

          No compensation is awarded in this case, on the ground complainant suppressed material fact in the complaint and he did not comply the regulation and terms and conditions at the time of filing the claim and repairing the said vehicle.

          Op is directed to comply the order very strictly failing which prosecution may be started against him or he for violation of the Forum’s order.