On 18.09.2018 the complainants lodged the complaint u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.P. Nos.1 & 2.  

The case of the complainants in brief, is that, they are the owners of vehicle being No.WB-59/3848 (bus) which was insured under the O.P in the year 2015 and the police number is 51300231150100002201 for the period from 27.11.2015 to 26.11.2016. The said vehicle met an accident on 26.11.2016 at Dalkhola under Karandighi P.S for which the frontal portion of the bus was damaged. The FIR was made before Karandighi P.S and a case was started being number Karandighi P.S case No.35/16 dt. 02.12.16. Karandighi P.S. seized the said vehicle along with connected papers and D.L of the driver on 04.12.16 and the I.O of the said case put D.L No.WB59/19825 wrongly instead of D.L. No.WB59/19815 in the seizure list. The complainants paid premium Rs.40,961/- to the O.P. The O.P did survey the matter and assured the loss and submitted his report to the Divisional Manager. The complainants expended Rs.1,71,744/- for repairing of the vehicle at the garage of Raiganj. They also submitted their bills to the O.P along with document, but the O.P informed that the driving license of the driver who drove the vehicle was not correct and the complainants will not get any compensation. Then they submitted the D.L particulars from the R.T.O, Raiganj to the O.P and requested them to pay the compensation. As per demand of the O.P they filed the authorization letter in stamp paper authenticated by Notary Public and while they prepared the authorization letter in prescribed format the D.L. No.WB59/19825 was wrongly written instead of D.L.No.WB59/19815 which was bonafide mistake and the D.L of driver Dilip Biswas was valid up to 03.09.2018 from 04.09.2009 and on the date of accident the D.L was valid.  Subsequently, the I.O on realization of his mistake he rectified the S.L on the point of D.L number.

Upon this back ground the complainants pray to direct the O.P to pay Rs.1,71,744/- for repairing, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The O.P. has contested the case by filing written version against the complaint denying all the material allegation contending inter alia that the case is bad for defect of non joinder of necessary parties and the case is barred by limitation and that the case must be proved strictly by the complainants. The S.L dt. 06.05.2017 in respect of the D.L No.WB59/19825 was correct as the driver Mithun Das who was holder of the vehicle drove the vehicle. The O.P further submitted that the liability and responsibility of the accident lies upon the said driver and owner of the vehicle. They knowingly and willfully neglected and violated the provision of M.V.Act and rules and as such the Insurance Co. i.e. O.Ps are not liable to pay any compensation for the said accident.  

Upon this back ground the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.

                                                                 Decision with reasons

In order to prove the case the complainant Tarun Kr. Dutta has examined himself and also on behalf of other complainant as P.W.1. The complainant also examined one Dilip Biswas who claims to be the driver of the vehicle in question as P.W.2. But the O.P did not adduce any oral evidence.

Perused the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The P.W.1 has corroborated the case of them depicted in the complaint. The P.W.2 has deposed that at the time of accident he was the driver of the vehicle in question and his D.L.No.WB59/19815 which was valid from 04.09.2009 to 03.09.2018. The O.P could not shake the evidence of both the P.Ws.1 and 2. The O.P put some denial the fact of the case and the D.L of the P.W.2 which has been in negative form by the P.W.1 & P.W.2. From the insurance policy being No.51300231150100002201 it appears that the insurance policy is in the name of the complainants who are the owners of the vehicle and the policy was covered for the period from 27.11.15  at 12.00 a.m to 26.11.16 at 11.59 p.m and the value of the insurance policy is Rs.5,00,000/- and the complainant  paid the premium regularly as per terms and condition of the policy. Xerox copy of the complaint with regard to the Karandighi P.S. M.A.Case No.35/16 dt.02.12.16 the accident occurred on 26.11.16 at noon i.e at about 1.30 p.m at Dalkhola in front of flour mill. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of accident the vehicle was covered by the insurance policy.

On the other hand the O.P did not oppose the fact of accident at all in his written version and did not adduce any oral evidence in support of the case of the O.P. Ld. Advocate for the O.P has argued that the P.W.2 did not drive the vehicle at the time of accident as because the D.L so seized by the police in connection with the said police case was not of the P.W.2 but of one Mithun Das drove the vehicle and as such the complainant are not entitled to get the relief as prayed for. He also pointed out that as subsequently the police officer has corrected the D.L. number it has no evidentiary value. But Ld. Advocate for the complainants has argued that during investigation of the police case the I.O has corrected the D.L. number which was wrongly written, but the S.L disclosed that the D.L of Dilip Biswas has been seized and it does not disclose that the D.L of Mithun Das was seized and to put one numerical digit 2 in place of digit 1 will not change the name of the driver.  The D.L being No.WB59/19815 is in the name of P.W.2 Dilip Biswas and Dilip Biswas himself being the P.W.2 stated that he drove the vehicle at the time of accident and the O.P could not produce any evidence that the driver who is holder of the D.L.No.WB59/19825 drove the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, considering the evidence on record as a whole it can be said that the P.W.2 Dilip Biswas drove the vehicle and the mere correction of the one digit of the D.L number by the police officer during investigation cannot allow the O.P to held the presumption that the complainants are not entitled to get the expenses for repairing the vehicle.

 From the complainant as well as evidence of the P.W.1 it appears that they claimed Rs.1,71,744/- as expenses for the repairing of the vehicle, but from the Xerox copy of the receipt filed by the complainants at appears that the expenses was Rs.2,09,944/-. Therefore, as the complainants claimed Rs.1,71,744/- it would be proper and justified to allow the same. But the complainant are belayed and harassed to get the said relief from the O.Ps and they were under compulsion to file the case. Accordingly, it is quite natural to allow compensation of Rs.10,000/- and  Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. The complainants are entitled to get the cost of repair of the vehicle of Rs.1,71,744/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- from the O.P.

The case succeeds.

Hence, it is,      

                                                             ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.Nos.1 & 2.

  The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.1,71,744/- as expenses for repair of the vehicle, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e 18.09.2018 by issuing an account payee cheque  within one month from the date of this order failing which it will carry further interest at the rate of 4% per annum till realization.  

Let the certified copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.