C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/109
COMPLAINANT : Rajendra Podder,
S/o Babla Podder,
Vill – Nityanandapur,
Bablari, P.O. & P.S. Nabadwip,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) The Regional Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Kolkata Branch, Podder Court,
9th Floor, Gate No. 3,
18, Rabindra Sarani,
Kolkata – 700 001
2) The Branch Manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
D.L. Roy Road,
Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
3) Koushik Biswas,
Branch Incharge,
Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Near City Hotel, Burdwan - 713101
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 08th July, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Matador, Swaraj Mazda being registration No. WB-37B/6172 at a price of Rs. 6,34,272/-. It is his further case that the said vehicle was insured with the OP No. 1 for the period from 31.03.09 and 30.03.10 and the total insured amount is Rs. 6,02,500/-. The said vehicle met an accident on 04/05.12.2009 at Ghoralia, P.S. Santipur regarding which a complaint was lodged at Santipur P.S. being F.I.R. No. 604/09 dtd. 05.12.09 U/S 279/338/304 A/427 I.P.C. The complainant is an unemployed person and he purchased the vehicle for earning his bread. At this accident the driver expired and the father-in-law of the complainant was seriously injured. The said vehicle was placed on the workshop of Chatterjee Industries, Radhanagar Road, Krishnagar which submitted a list of damaged spare parts to the extent of Rs. 3,44,895/- along with labour charge of Rs. 32,600/-, in total Rs. 3,77,495/-. At the request of this complainant the surveyor of the OP No. 1 made a survey of the damaged vehicle on 13.01.10 and prepared a list of spare parts amounting to Rs. 3,44,895/-. But on 27.01.10 the OP No. 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence at the time of accident. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP No. 1, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. From his written version it is available that the vehicle was duly insured with him for the period as stated in the petition of complaint. But his specific contention is that at the time of the accident the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence to drive it. So as per policy condition and motor vehicle Act, this OP has no liability to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. Hence, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed.
OP No. 3 has filed a separate written version in this case. It is his submission that he is the financier who financed the complainant to purchase the vehicle. As per agreement the complainant is bound to repay the loan amount as per instalment. Regarding accident he has no knowledge. So, this complainant has no cause of action to implicate him as a party in this case. Therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get any benefits as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written versions filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for all sides it is available on record that the complainant purchased the disputed vehicle Swaraj Majda which was insured with the OP No. 1 and the insurance period was from 31.03.09 to 30.03.10 and the total IDV was Rs. 6,02,500/-. From the documents filed by the complainant it is available that the vehicle met an accident 05.12.09 within Santipur P.S. regarding which Santipur P.S. case No. 604/09 dtd. 05.12.09 was started U/S 279/338/304 A/427 I.P.C. There is no denial on the side of the OP No. 1 regarding the insurance of the vehicle with him and also about the accident of the vehicle. From the submission of the ld. lawyer for the OP No. 1 it is available that he appointed a surveyor also to make a survey about the damage of the vehicle. Surveyor’s report is not filed by him, but from the petition of complaint it is available that surveyor estimated the cost of damaged parts of the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 3,44,895/- which was the price list given by Chatterjee Industries as price of damaged parts of the vehicle. The only point agitated by the ld. lawyer for the OP No. 1 that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence to drive the vehicle. From the F.I.R. it is available that the driver of the vehicle expired on the spot at the time of accident. On the side of the OP a copy of the driving licence in the name of the driver Tapan Debnath is filed. From this document it is available that the driving licence was issued in his favour by MV Department, Jharkhand on 13.04.05 and the driving licence was valid up to 12.04.08. Again that driving licence was renewed on 10.04.08 extending the validity up to 12.04.11. This document bears the seal and signature of the licensing authority, MV Department, Jharkhand. No other document is filed by the OP No. 1 to establish that this driving licence was not issued by the MV Department, Jharkhand. Ld. lawyer for the OP has frankly submitted at the time of argument that at this stage he was nothing to show that this driving licence is an invalid document. So considering this document we hold that it is a valid document and this licence was duly issued by the MV Department, Jharkhand which was valid up to 12.04.11. On the other hand, the accident happened on 05.12.09. So we find that at the relevant time of the accident the driver had a valid licence to drive the vehicle of the complainant. It is already established that the said driver expired in that accident. Regarding damage of the vehicle there is no challenge on the side of the OP. Complainant has also filed a price list of the spare parts given by the surveyor of the OP No. 1 on 13.01.10 which shows that the total price of the spare parts required for the damaged vehicle including labour charge stood at Rs. 3,77,495/- along with crane charge for rescue of the vehicle Rs. 2,800/- as claimed by the complainant in total Rs. 3,80,295/-. Regarding crane charge no document is filed by the complainant. So we hold that actually the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,77,495/-. As the complainant’s case is established, we find no reason for repudiation of his claim by the OP No. 1. So for this harassment the complainant is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- plus litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- i.e., in total Rs. 3,83,495/-. As the complainant has become able to prove his case, so he is entitled to get the said amount from the OP No.1. Thus, in result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/109 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,83,495/- from the OP No. 1 & 2 who are jointly or severally liable to pay this amount to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount. We make no order against the OP No. 3.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
