Hon'ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.
The gist of the complaint as culled out from the case record is that Complainant Mr. Jayant Singh had got his motor vehicle damaged on 01.10.2015 which was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company (O.P. No.2). He preferred a claim to the Insurance Company for the same. O.P. No.2 Company sought for necessary documents and the driving license of the Complainant for settlement of the claim. Accordingly the Complainant submitted all relevant documents alongwith receipt of driving license through which revalidation of driving license was done by the Regional Transport Officer, Cooch Behar(O.P. No.1). On receipt of all documents O.P. No.2 Company issued letter to O.P. NO.1 seeking clarification and authorisation about the validity of the said driving license. O.P. No.1 (the licensing authority) intimated the O.P. No.2 Company by a letter No. WB-63/DLX/330/2015 dated 18.11.2015 having extract of the driving license which shows that said license was valid from 28.07.10 to 27.07.15 and again from 28.07.15 to 31.01.15 and revalidated on 04.11.15 and unfortunately it is mentioned there that the said license was valid throughout the period except from 01.09.15 to 03.11.15 though the said license was revalidated by the said licensing authority up to 15.11.2015. Consequently the O.P. No.2 Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant for breach of condition under driver clause resulting a financial loss, mental pain and agony to the Complainant.
Being aggrieved by the act of the O.P. No.1 which shows sheer negligence and callousness of the licensing authority, Cooch Behar Complainant applied to the District Magistrate, Cooch Behar stating his grievances but of no avail. Ultimately the Complainant sent a legal notice through his Advocate on 18.02.16 demanding issuance of a rejoinder to the O.P. No.2 Company and recalling their earlier intimation being No. WB-63/DLX/330/2015 dated 18.11.2015 so that the claim of the Complainant can be settled. The said legal notice was received by the O.P. No.2 on 24.02.16 but they did not respond to that notice. The Complainant claimed that for such act of omission and Commission in furnishing wrong information with respect to validity of the said license by the O.P. No.1, the O.P. No.2 repudiated the claim which causes a big financial loss which in turn causes mental pain, agony and sufferings to the Complainant. Having found no other alternative the Complainant filed this instant case before this Commission for redressal of his grievances. He prayed for a direction to the O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for furnishing wrong information with respect to the driving license and to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony and sufferings. He also prayed for a direction to the O.P. No.2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- fro repudiation of the claim illegally and to pay Rs.25,000/- for cost of proceedings.
Summons were served upon the O.Ps. Both the O.Ps contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument. O.P. No.1, the Licensing Authority, Cooch Behar in his defence case stated that the renewal of driving license of the Complainant was done on 28.07.15 and the receipt was issued from the licensing authority with validity up to sixty days i.e. up to 27.09.15 but the said receipt bears an endorsement “ Revalid u to 15.11.15” which is denied by the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 also argued that according to the rule of renewal of driving license, the validity of the license is extended up to the date of attaining the age of 50 years by the driver. Here in this case, the date of birth of the Complainant is 10.09.1965 so he will attain the age of 50 years on 31.08.15. That is why the validity of said driving license was extended up to 31.08.15. The matter “Revalid up to 15.11.15” on the receipt the driving license are all false and manufactured by the Complainant for illegal gain. So the O.P. No.1 is strongly denying the same. As such O.P. No.1 intimated the same to the O.P. No.2 on his query to the validity of the driving license in question.
O.P. No.2, on receipt of a clarification of the validity of the driving license from the O.P. No.1 repudiated the claim of the Complainant. O.P. No.2 argued that the vehicle got damaged due to accident on 01.10.15 and intimation to O.P. No.2 was given on 05.10.15. There was a delay of four days in intimating the O.P. No.2 which violates the policy condition No.1 which states “notice shall be given in writing to the company upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons or process of copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured.” He also argued that on verification of the driving license extract supplied by the O.P. No.1. The said license was not valid from 01.09.15 to 03.11.15. The date of accident was 01.10.15. Thus it is established that driver had no effective license on the date of accident which also violates the section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which states “ No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall drive a transport vehicle(other than a motorcab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section(2) of section 7 unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so.
Perused the case record and all documents submitted by the Complainant and O.Ps. Heard the argument advanced by the Complainant and O.Ps at length. Hence, below mentioned points are required to be discussed to reach a conclusion about the decision of this instant case.
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint petition?
Point No.1.
Complainant stacked an insurance claim to the O.P. No.2 Company with whom his car was insured after having his car damaged following an accident. O.P. No.2 Company wanted to know the validity and authenticity of the driving license of the Complainant from O.P. No.1, the Licensing Authority, Cooch Behar District by a letter. The O.P. No.2 replied to the letter of the O.P. No.1 Company with a negative remark that the said driving license was valid throughout the period except from 01.09.15 to 03.11.15 which was a text from driving license extract generated from computer. On receipt of the letter from the O.P. No.1, the O.P. No.2 repudiated the claim of the Complainant for violation of terms and conditions of the insurance under driver clause.
The driver had no valid driving license on the date of occurrence of accident which is against the driver clause of the insurance policy. Thus a question of validity of the driving license arises. The receipt of driving license for renewal shows that it is valid for sixty days from the date of receipt(i.e. 28.08.15). The said driving license was valid up to 27.09.15 and on 28.09.15 there was an endorsement “Revalid up to 15.11.15” on the receipt of driving license for renewal with the seal of the Licensing Authority, Cooch Behar. Thus some one of the licensing authority had done the renewal manually with endorsement “Revalid up to 15.11.15”.
Moreover, O.P. No.2 intimated the O.P. No.1 by a letter that issue date mentioned in the receipt copy of driving license was not mentioned in the extract copy. The extract copy of driving license is computer generated but receipt copy of driving license is manual which requires to be entered in the computer. But the O.P. No.1 did not enter the date of the manual receipt of the driving license. So there is a gap of validity from 01.09.15 to 03.11.15 as shown in the extract of driving license which is a fault on the part of the O.P. No.1. Thus there is a deficiency in service on the part on O.P. No.1. Point No.1 is therefore decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
Deficiency on the part of O.P. No.1 caused the O.P. No.2 to repudiate the insurance claim of the Complainant under driver clause which requires a valid driving license of the driver during an accident. But as per extract of the driving license supplied by the O.P. No.1 the driving license was not valid from 01.09.15 to 03.11.15 and the car of the Complainant was damaged due to accident on 01.10.15. So, at the time of accident driver had no valid license due to which claim was repudiated. But at the aforesaid Point No.1, the Commission is of the view that due to deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 the Complainant was deprived of his legitimate claim of insurance which caused mental pain and agony to him. Thus, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for in the complaint petition.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant case be and it is allowed on contest with cost.
The O.P. No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony and suffering. The O.P. No.2 is directed to pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation for repudiation of his claim and to pay Rs.25,000/- for cost of proceeding. Both O.Ps are liable to pay the said amount mentioned against each within 45 days from this date failing which awarded sum will carry an interest @ 6% per annum till realisation of the amount.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
