FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER

This is a complaint case filed u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The complainant  took one Insurance Policy from United India Insurance Co. for his vehicle being No. NL-01-D-8718 for the period from 10.06.2017 to 09.06.2018 under policy no. 0303003117P 103755081 where the IDV was Rs.5,30,000/- . The car was authorized to move and fit as per certificate from the competent authority which was valid till 01.07.2018.  The complainant engaged one Mantu Kumar as Driver after verifying his relevant documents. On 20.10.2017 at about  03-15 pm the said vehicle met an accident near village Balilapalli, Chittor on NH 4, Banagarupalam and was badly damaged. The complainant informed the nearest Police Station and lodged one FIR against the main accused. Thereafter the complainant as per advice of the Insurance Co. handed over the said vehicle to SREE KARPAGAMBAL INDUSTRIES (Auto Mobile Body Builder ) who gave a bill of Rs.2,80,000/- for repairing charge. The Insurance Company engaged one Investigator named Narendra Tapodhan to investigate the driving license of the driver Montu Kumar from the RTO Authority. The RTO Authority informed that the license of the driver is Fake and False. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 08.05.2018 on the ground of INVALID License of the driver. The complainant states that there was no fault of the driver in the said accident and the police report does not have any mention of driver’s fault. So the repudiation of the claim is illegal and the OP is bound to pay the claim of Rs.2,80,000/- with 12% interest along with compensation and litigation.

The OP Insurance Company has contested the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law.   The insurance was valid for the period from 10.06.2017 to 09.06.2018 . The vehicle is a truck and its manufacturing year was 2008. As per the statement of the complainant the insured vehicle met with an accident on 20.10.2017.

The statement of the complainant in the matter of engagement of driver is misconceived and motivated. The complainant is aware of the Fake License of the driver while engaging him and guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver. The complainant cannot take the plea that the driver was engaged on good faith. The owner of the vehicle will take all reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licensed produced does fulfill the requirements of law or not. The OP denies the statement that as per advice of the Insurance Company the vehicle was handed over to the SREE KARPAGAMB INDUSTRIES . More over the bill of Rs.2,80,000/- towards repairing charge is disputed and not admitted by the party. After receiving the information of accident the Insurance Company engaged one investigator to investigate the alleged accident. He verified the driving license and visited the office of RTO, at  Mokokehung, Nagaland twice to check the genuineness of the driving license No.2551/MKG/Prof/13 of the driver Mantu Kumar. The RTO Office ,Nagaland vide report dated 27.03.2018 certified the license as Fake and False. As such, the driver Mantu Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The person driving a vehicle should hold an effective and valid driving license to drive the category of vehicle insured under the policy at the time of accident. The driving license produced by the complainant is confirmed by the licensing authority, Nagaland to be false and fake. It is in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and accordingly the claim was rightly repudiated. The complainant did not lodge FIR against the driver Mantu Kumar for holding Fake License which is a criminal offence.  The OP however entrusted a Surveyor who submitted the Final Survey Report dated 21.04.2018 assessing the Net Liability at Rs.64,900/- but observed that the claim is tenable because the driving the license is not genuine. Moe over there is a suppression of fact. The vehicle is financed by L&T Finance Ltd., but the complainant has deliberately suppressed the fact. In case of loan against vehicle, the borrower is not entitled to get any money from the Insurance Company. The complaint is bad for non joinder of parties.

Points for Determination

In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.

1)  Whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
            2)  Whether the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice?

           3)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-

The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainant and the OP have filed their Evidences supported by affidavit. .Replies to  questionnaire set forth by their adversaries have been filed .. Both parties have submitted their BNAs.

 The fact of the case in brief is that  the complainant was having a Vehicle Insurance Policy bearing No. . 0303003117P 103755081 of their vehicle No.NL-01-D-8718. The said policy was in force during the period from 10.06.2017 to 09.06.2018. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.10.2017. Necessary FIR was made.  Claim intimation was submitted vide report dated 24.10.2017 to the OP.  One Quotation from SREE KARPAGAMBAL INDUSTRIES ( Auto Mobile Body Builder) , Redhills, Chennai -52 addressed to Northern Cargo Service, Balasore- 756056, Orissa is found in the record which seems to have been submitted to the OP.  The claim stands rejected by the OP vide letter dated 08.05.2018 under the scope of cover under the Clause and General exception of the aforesaid policy which reads as under:-

(i) Driver Clause; “person or classes of person entitled to drive”

“Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving license to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder at the time accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that a person holding an effective  and valid learner’s license  to drive the category the vehicle insured hereunder may also drive the vehicle when not used for transport for passengers at the time of accident and that the person satisfies the requirement of Rule  03 Central Motor Vehicle Rule  1989”.

(ii) 3 (b) of General Exception

The company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of “any accidental loss damage and/or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle    insured herein is (b) being driven by or is for the purpose of being driven him/her in the charge of any person other than a driver  as stated a drive clause ”.

The vehicle was being driven by Mr. Mantu Kumar having driving license No. 2551/MKG/PROF/13 at the material time of accident.  On verification of the driving license from the concerned authority i.e. Registering Transport Authority, MOKOKCHUNG, Nagaland it is observed that no such driving license was issued from their office. In view of the above, the claim lodged by the complainant was refused.

The OP has submitted one letter dated 06.04.2018 provided by Mr. Narendra Tapodhan, Investigator Insurance engaged by the OP in the matter of verification of driving license of Mr. Mantu Kumar who was driving the subject vehicle  at the time of accident. In the said letter it is mentioned that Mr. Tapodhan visited RTO, MOKOKCHUNG twice to check the genuineness of the license  issued in the of Mantu Kumar and he was informed that driving license of Mantu Kumar record not found. Mr. Tapodhan enclosed one questionnaire form duly sealed and signed by the RTO MOKOKCHUNG, Nagaland where it certifies in Remarks Column  that the license is fake and false. As such, rejection of the claim by the OP on the ground of driver holding fake and false license  is according to terms and condition of the policy which is binding on both sides.

While perusing the document it is observed that the complainant has not submitted the details of expenditure in terms of bill, vouchers Receipts and other related documents from the workshop where the vehicle was repaired. Instead of all these expenditure details, the complainant has submitted only a Quotation dated 18.11.2017  from the repairing workshop. Under the above circumstances, we are not in a position to confirm that the said vehicle has been repaired with definite costs .

Ld. Advocate for the complainant has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the matter of New India Assurance Ltd. Vs. Pradip Kumar Vide Civil Appeal No. 3253/2002 decided on 09.04.2009 where the insured submitted original vouchers, bills and receipts. In the present case, the complainant has submitted only a mere quotation for which the above case law is not applicable here. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nirmala Kothari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  in Civil Appeal Nos. 1999-2000 of  2020 arising out of Special Leave Petition is also not applicable since the OP has proved the license of the driver being fake and false and the complainant knowing the facts has not taken any action against the said driver.  In spite of all the odds mentioned above, the OP insurance company as a good gesture conducted final survey as per their Rules and Regulations. The surveyor in his final report dated 24.04.2018 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 64,900/- and recommended not to settle the claim in view of  Driver clause. We also find in the report that the financer  of the subject vehicle is M/s L & T Finance Ltd. who has not been included as necessary party

Under the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that the complainant has failed to  establish his case against the OP.

All the points under determination are answered accordingly.

In the result, the Consumer Complaint  fails.

Hence,          

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.

Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties