The brief facts of the instant case are that the on 29/02/2000 one Tata Diesel Truck belonging to the complainant under registration number ML 08- 1762 met with an accident at Sananggre village at Garobadha – Phulbari road. In the said accident, said vehicle was badly damaged and some of the labourers too were injured. The vehicle was driven by one Shri Dinesh Hajong who was apparently having a valid license. On the basis of this the Complainant lodged a claim with M/S. Oriental Insurance Company. The insurance company vide their letter dt. 08/11/2001 conveyed rejection of her claim indicating “violation of the Driving License Clause (Fake Driving License)” as the causing of rejection. The Insurance Company also failed to furnish a copy of the Surveyor’s Report to the Complainant. Aggrieved by the action of the Insurance Company, the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum to get her grievance redressed. The O.P. insurance company filed the written statement and based on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues were framed in this case:

                       

I.                    Whether there is any cause of action for the complainant?

II.                 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?

III.               Whether the complaint petition was filed in time?

IV.              Whether the Driving License in the question is fake?

V.                 Whether the Surveyor assessed the damage and if so why a copy of it was not served on the complainant and whether it amounts to deficiency of service?

VI.              To what reliefs are the parties entitled?

Now on the basis of all materials available with this forum, the issues are decided as follows:

Issue I & II:    Sec 2(i) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act speaks about “deficiency in service” – meaning by any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy or performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

As per para 3 of the w/s of the OP, the accident involving the said vehicle is accepted by it & this fact is also proven by the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. Dalu P.S. in connection with GR case no. 116/2000. As per the opinion of this forum there is a cause of action for the complainant and the action of the OP in not proving the complainant the grounds which enabled the OP to arrive at the conclusion that the D/L is fake and thus rejecting the claim of the claimant without adequate action on its part definitely falls into the ambit of “deficiency in service” and therefore the complainant definitely has a cause of action as per the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly Issues I & II are decided affirmatively in favour of the claimant-complainant.

Issue III: M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. vide their letter dt. 08/11/2001 rejected the claim of the claimant and hence as per this forum the cause of action arose on that day only. The present complaint case was filed before this forum on 19/03/2003 i.e. well within the limit of 2 years as envisaged u/s 24 A of the CPA 1986. Hence this complaint and claim petition is filed well within the time limit.

Issue IV: On the issue of the fake Driving License(D/L), the complainant has brought to the notice of the forum the authority as per AIR 2008 SC 1073 in Prem Kumari & others Vs. Prahalad Dev & others            wherein inter alia it is stated that “… where the owner of the vehicle has satisfied himself that the driver has a license and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Sec 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the MV Act. The insurance co. would not be then absolved of the liability. If it ultimately turns out that the license was fake, the insurance co. would remain to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted the person to drive ….” Thus to avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding the use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Hence the O.P. has failed to prove this fact and as per the Forum the O.P. cannot avoid their liability in this instant case.

Issue V: In absence of any contention from the O.P. regarding the furnishing of the surveyor’s damage assessment report to the claimant, this forum is of the opinion that by not doing so the O.P. has shown deficiency of services as per CPA 1986.

Issue VI: This forum has gone through various judgements & order of the other forums & high courts. Some of the factors, which this forum opines, are important to decide the reliefs are: the loss of income to the complainant due to deficiency in service, the inconvenience caused to her, the mental pain and agony suffered by her etc. After   considering all the material facts, the forum is of the opinion that :

(1)   The complainant is entitled to a compensation to Rs. 90,800 (Rupees Ninety thousand and eight hundred) as labour charges for repairing the damaged vehicle and Rs. 22,000/- (Twenty two thousand) as cost of replacement of the spare parts.

(2)   Also this forum decides that the opposite party should pay an amount of Rupees Ten thousand as a compensation for mental pain and agony which the complainant experienced for the deficiency in service provided by the O.P. and Rupees Five Thousand as cost of the legal proceedings.

The forum directs the O.P. to pay the entire amount of relief awarded to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which interest @ 9% on the total award will accrue.

The case stands disposed off accordingly.