1. This complaint case has been filed by the complainant against the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. who illegally and arbitrarily refused to settle the claim amount of loss and damages caused to the insured vehicle causing mental tension, agony, harassment, injury, loss and damages to the complainant.

2. The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is a registered owner of vehicle tanker bearing registration no. JH04F0532 and the said vehicle comprehensively insured with the O.P. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. under Policy No. 332401/31/2013/4492 valid and effective from 13.03.13 to 18.03.14 and the entire liability in respect of the damages caused to the vehicle in accident vests on the shoulder of the O.P. Insurance Co.

3. It is further submitted that the said vehicle met with an accident on 19.06.13 at about            11:00 AM on Ranchi Ramgarh road NH33 while carrying diesel from Ranchi Depot to Hansdiha Dumka and due to bursting of back tire causing unbalance of the said vehicle in the road side ditch causing damages to the vehicle. Information regarding the accident of vehicle was given to the Ramgarh P.S. and also to the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. The O.P. Insurance Co. appointed surveyor to conduct the spot survey on 25.06.13 and thereafter the complainant submitted duly filled motor claim form and claim to the O.P. which was registered as claim no. 332401/31/2014/0028. The estimate of the repairing of the accidental tanker was submitted to O.P. on 29.06.13 and the final survey was made in respect of the damages caused to the vehicle and the surveyor on 27.09.13 was not loss of and thereafter of the vehicle was made by the surveyor who submitted report on 29.10.13.

4. Apart from that the surveyor also made investigation regarding the driving license and he made the verification of the driving license from DTO Dumka and submitted his report on 31.12.13. The complainant approached to the O.P. several times since the date of causing damages to the vehicle continuously till 17.04.17 to settle the claim and make payment of the amount of loss and damages caused to the said vehicle but the O.P. deliberately and intentionally delayed the matter on some pretext and others and ultimately on 17.04.17 orally refused to settle the amount of loss and damages caused to the said vehicle.

5. The complainant sent a pleader notice dt. 29.04.17 but O.P. did not answered which itself proves the gross negligency and deficiency in services rendered by the O.P. as well as unfair trade practices. It is further submitted that the O.P. knowingly, deliberately and intentionally failed to settle the claim and the same amounts to gross negligency and deficiency on the part of the O.P. as well as proves its unfair trade practices causing mental tension, agony, harassment, injury, loss and damages to the complainant. The delay in settling the claim and making payment of damages and loss amounts to the complainant entitles the complainant to get interest @ 18% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of accident till its payment.

6. The complainant is the consumer as defined under this act. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 19.06.13 the date of accident causing loss and damages to the vehicle in question and also the spot survey report on 25.06.13. Estimate                 dt.  29.06.13, final survey report dt.  27.09.13                  re-inspection report dt. 29.10.13, D.L. verification report dt. 31.12.13. Several approaches were made to the O.P. by the complainant continuously till 17.04.17 but the O.P. orally refused to settle the claim in 17.04.17. Pleader notice was also sent on 02.05.17 and is continuing one.

7.   The complainant claims the following reliefs : -

1. The O.P. may be directed to remove the defect by making payment of loss and damages amounting to Rs 2,39,500/- to the complainant.
2. The O.P. may also be directed to make payment of compensation amounting to Rs 1,00,000/- to the complainant.
3. The O.P. may further be directed to make payment @ 18% p.a. to the complainant on the awarded amount from the date of the accident till its payment.
4. The O.P. may also be directed to make payment of Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

8. The O.P i.e; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed his show cause on 05.03.18 stating therein that the case of the complainant is wholly misconceived, illegal and untenable in law. There is no deficiency in services or latches whatsoever on the part of the O.P. and there is no valid cause of action at all which can warrant institution of the above case and is barred by law of limitation.

9. It is further submitted that the insurance of the complainants’ vehicle tanker bearing registration no. JH04F0532 is admitted which is insured by the O.P by policy no. 332401/31/2013/4492 valid and effective from 19.03.13 to 18.03.14. And it is also admitted fact that the information of the vehicle mentioned above regarding the accident occurred on 19.06.13 and also the claim above was also received to the O.P. on 30.01.14 and the O.P. registered the claim no. 332401/31/2014/0028.

10. The complainant after lodging the claim along with the papers thereafter closely scrutinized all the papers and for verification of the driving license from the DTO, Dumka was contacted by the surveyor appointed by the O.P. and the D.T.O. issued a certificate also regarding the driving license.  The verification of the driving license along with DTO’s certificate was found at the time of the accident the driver Ashok Mahato driving the said vehicle was not competent and as such not authorized to drive the vehicle the tanker.

11. He through his driving license bearing no. 2022/90 was initially authorized to drive LMV only and at the time of the later stage he was further allowed through endorsement on the license to drive HMV and PSV but not the tanker. This would be pertinent to mention here that for driving the tanker which carries petroleum and diesel which are explosive and hazardous goods, specific endorsement, provided the driver is trained and well skilled to drive such vehicle is required to be mentioned clearly in the driving license. No specific endorsement to this effect was there in the license of Ashok Mahato, the driver of the accidental vehicle as required u/s 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 specifically section 10(2)(g). The relevant section is mentioned below for ready reference :-

1. Every learner’s license and driving license except a driving license issued u/s 18 shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
2. A learner’s license or as the case may be, driving license shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely –

1.       Motorcycle without gear
2.       Motorcycle with gear
3.       Invalid carriage
4.       Light Motor Vehicle
5.       Transport Vehicle
6.        Road roller
7.        Motor vehicle of specified verification.

12. By employing and allowing the incompetent untrained driver who did not possess the valid and effective driving license at the time of accident the insurer/ owner has knowingly violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy and as such the insured owner is not entitled to any sort of compensation for the damage caused to him from the insurance company.

13. The complainant vide letter dt. 30.01.14 was informed that as the driver of the accidental vehicle (tanker) was not having proper Driving license to drive the hazardous goods vehicle, i.e; tanker which is in violation of the driver’s clause as well as terms and conditions of motor policy the company is not liable to make any payment against the claim and the O.P. gave one more opportunity to the claimant to substantiate his claim in view of the ground of repudiation at the O.P. end for substantiating his claim. The claimant, the policy holder was given two weeks time from the date of the receipt of the letter and was clearly informed that in case of no response with the specified period his claim shall stand repudiated for the reasons in dictated in the above letter.

14. The claimant did not respond to this letter and in fact the complainant has no grounds at all to substantiate his claim and unfortunately and surprisingly the complainant instead of availing the opportunity given to him for substantiating his claim within the specified period sent a pleader’s notice dt. 29.04.17. The complainant got the information that his claim was repudiated what prevented him to comply with the repudiation letter. As such under the above circumstances this O.P. instead of giving reply to the notice asked the claimant through the letter dt. 05.05.17 as to how he could know about refusal of his claim.

15. It is further submitted that the claimant after receiving the repudiation letter dt. 30.01.14 well in time was fully satisfied that he was not entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company, the O.P. and therefore he did not take any step to obtain compensation thereafter.

16. It is further submitted that dt. 09.01.14 two years limitation period was over and the claimant lost his legal right to sue to company for compensation for damages caused to him due to the alleged accident. It is further submitted that in view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation or insurance benefit from the O.P. and the O.P. has been dragged unnecessarily in this litigation and further prayed to dismiss the complainant case with cost and in favor of the O.P.

17. The main point for the determination in this case is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed!

                                                                               Findings

                The complainant in support of his case has filed oral and documentary evidence both. He has filed the affidavit as witness which is CW1 Dular Yadav

And has also filed the following documentary evidences which are as follows –

Exhibit 1 – Photocopy of certificate of registration JH04F0532

Exhibit 2 – photocopy of Insurance policy issued by Oriental Insurance Co. regarding vehicle JH04F0532 (tanker) effective from 19.03.13 to 18.03.14

Exhibit 3 – photocopy of information given to Ramgarh P.S. regarding the accident on 20.06.13

Exhibit 4 – photocopy of spot survey report dt. 25.06.13

Exhibit 5 – Photocopy of motor claim form

Exhibit 6 – Photocopy of estimate of the accidental tractor dt. 29.06.13

Exhibit 7 – final survey report dt. 27.09.13

Exhibit 8 – Photocopy of re-inspection report dt. 29.10.13

Exhibit 9 – verification of the driving license dt. 31.12.13

Exhibit 10 – photocopy of particulars of driving license issued by DTO, Dumka dt. 17.12.13

Exhibit 11 – Photocopy of pleader notice dt. 29.04.17

18. The O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. has not adduced any oral evidences but filed some documentary evidences which are as follows : -

Exhibit A – Photocopy of particulars of driving license of driver Ashok Mahato issued by DTO Dumka dt. 17.12.13

Exhibit B – photocopy of letter dt. 30.01.14 issued by Branch Manager, i.e; O.P. to the complainant

Exhibit C – reply of the O.P. of the legal notice of the complainant dt. 05.05.17

Apart from that no other oral or documentary evidences has been adduced on behalf of the O.P. in this case.

19. Heard the Learned Counsel of both the parties and also gone through the evidences oral and documentary both carefully and minutely and after carefully scrutinizing and analyzing we come to the conclusion that following are the admitted points. It is admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question, i.e.; tanker JH04F0532. It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle was insured by the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. by insurance no. 332401/31/2013/4492 effective from 19.03.13 to 18.03.14. It is further submitted that the said vehicle met with an accident and information regarding the accident was also given to the O.P. and on the basis of that report the claim was registered as claim no. 332401/31/2014/0028. It is also admitted fact that the O.P. appointed a surveyor to conduct the survey regarding the accidental vehicle.

20. The O.P. i.e; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim of the complainant merely on the ground that driver was not competent to drive the vehicle, i.e; the tanker. The driver has no bonafide license to drive the vehicle in question and as per section 10(2)(g) of Motor Vehicle Act the claim of the complainant was refused by the O.P. Insurance Co.

21. The O.P. in his show cause in PR 9 on page 3, 4 and 5 has taken the plea that the driver Ashok Mahato was driving the vehicle and at the time of the accident was not competent and authorized to drive the vehicle tanker because he has no license to drive the same which carries petroleum and diesel which are explosive and hazardous goods, specific endorsement, provided the driver is trained and well skilled to drive such vehicle is required to be mentioned clearly in the driving license. No specific endorsement to this effect was there in the license of Ashok Mahato, the driver of the accidental vehicle as required u/s 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 specifically section 10(2)(g).

22. Being the owner the complainant allowed the incompetent and untrained driver to commit the accident and the owner has knowingly violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and the complainant was informed by the O.P. as letter dt. 30.01.14 regarding the driver of the accidental vehicle was not having proper driving license to drive the vehicle as well as terms and conditions of the motor policy and the compensation was not payable to make any payment against the claim.

23. The learned of the complainant submitted that the section 10(2)(g) of the Motor vehicle Act has already been omitted by the amendment in 1994 in the Motor Vehicle Act u/s 10. There was no any averment regarding the driving of hazardous vehicle like tanker. Exhibit A which is the particulars of driving license issued by DTO and driver Ashok Mahato. Exhibit 9 is the verification regarding the driving license of Ashok Mahato by the surveyor dt. 31.12.13. Exhibit 4 is the spot survey report dt. 25.06.13. From going through this record it is pertinent that at the time of occurrence the vehicle in question was driven by Ashok Mahato and he has valid license up to 11.06.14. In Exhibit 4 lastly the surveyor has clearly mentioned that driver was also allowed to drive the tanker.

24. Exhibit 9 which is the verification of the driving license it is clearly mentioned by the surveyor in his report that Ashok Mahato was the driver and he was allowed to drive LMB and HMB and also PSB and his license was valid up to 11.06.14. Exhibit 10 and A is the same which is particulars of driving license of the driver issued by the office of the license authority, i.e; DTO on 17.12.13. In this document it is clearly mentioned that driver Ashok Mahato was allowed to drive LMB, HMB and PSB and also perused to drive the vehicle. In that circumstance the driver of the vehicle in question was competent to drive the tanker also.

25. I have also gone through the previous Motor Vehicle Act section 10 there is no specific provisions regarding license to drive the tanker comes within the preview of heavy motor vehicles and here the driver Ashok Mahato was having proper license and was authorized to drive the heavy motor vehicle as per Exhibit A, 10, 9 and 4 and repudiation of the claim of the complainant merely on the ground that Ashok Mahato was not competent to drive the tanker is not proper. I have also gone through the Exhibit B which is letter issued by the O.P. dt. 30.01.14 to the complainant stating this in his record the driving license and he has also mentioned in his report regarding Exhibit 9 the verification of the driving license and Exhibit 10 particulars of the driving license merely on this ground he has repudiated the claim of the complainant.

26. He has further mentioned in Exhibit B that without proper endorsement to drive the Hazardous goods vehicle which is necessary to drive the hazardous goods vehicle (oil tanker is involved) under this claim. Since the driver was not having proper D/L to drive the hazardous goods vehicle, i;e tanker  so there is violation of driver’s clause as well as terms and conditions of motor policy.

27. The O.P. Insurance Co. has not put forward any cheat of papers regarding the terms and conditions of the driver’s license which mentions that driver should be trained and skilled to drive the hazardous vehicle like tanker and repudiation of the claim on the sole ground seems no justice improper. On the other hand is surveyor which survey report is Exhibit 4, 7, 9 and 10. In that report the surveyor has clearly mentioned that the driver of the said accidental vehicle was Ashok Mahato who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was having valid driving license to drive the vehicle and the tanker also comes within the purview of heavy motor vehicle. As such the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. is totally arbitrary and illegal in the eyes of law which cause mental tension, agony, harassment, injury, loss and damages to the complainant.

28. One point was also arose by the O.P. that the case of the complainant is barred by law of limitation because the accident took place on 19.06.13 and the complainant has filed on 20.07.17, i.e; after the lapse of more than 2 years and the case of the complainant is barred by law of limitation and apart from that the claim of the claimant is already been repudiated by the O.P. the Oriental Insurance Co.  by his letter dt. 30.01.14 also. And the complainant has full knowledge regarding the letter and in spite of that he filed this complaint case only to harass the O.P. Insurance Co. But no reply to this allegation the complainant has clearly mentioned that the cause of action of the complaint case arose on 19.06.13, i.e; date of the accident and also the spot survey report by the surveyor dt. 26.06.13 estimate date was 29.06.13 final survey report was 29.07.13 and re- inspection report was 29.12.13 and D.L. Verification report was 31.12.13 and several approaches were made by the O.P. by the complainant continuously till 17.04.17 and O.P. orally refused to settle the claim on 17.04.17 and thereafter the pleader notice was sent to the O.P. by the complainant dt. 29.04.17. As such, the case of the complainant is not barred by law of limitation. He tried his best to settle his dispute with the O.P. and made regularly but lastly on 17.04.17 the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. orally refused to settle the claim.

29.  Considering the above facts we did not find that the complainant case is beyond limitation period. He has tried his best to settle the dispute but unfortunately he was compelled to file the complaint case on 20.07.17 which is within time and no barred by limitation.

30. From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. has  illegally and arbitrarily refused to settle the claim of the complainant which is gross negligency and deficiency on the part of the O.P. which also proves unfair trade practices causing mental tension, agony,

harassment, injury, loss and damages to the complainant. It is therefore, we

                                                                                Ordered

                  That the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is hereby directed to make payment of Rs 2,39,500/- to the complainant regarding the loss and damages. The O.P. is also directed to make compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- to the complainant and  to make payment of interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant on the awarded amount from the date of accident till its payment. The O.P. is hereby directed to make payment of Rs 10,000 to the complainant as cost of litigation.

                              All the above payments should be made by the O.P. within one month from the date of order.

                             Let a copy of this order be served to both the parties free of cost.

                                  Let this document be deposited in the record room and to be shown on the website of the commission.