Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                President

                    (2)      Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member                 

Date of Order : 16.07.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To direct the opposite party no. 1 to pay the real claim amount Rs. 1,43,192.44 ( Rs. One Lac Fourty Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two and Fourty Four Paise only ) as mentioned in Para 6 and 8 of the complaint petition and interest  12% from May 2014 till the date of disposal of this petition or payment be made by the opposite party no. 1.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is the registered Owner of Truck No. BR – 1G – 8454 and the said vehicle was duly insured by United India Insurance Company, the opposite party no. 1 for Comprehensive Insurance for Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three Lac only ) after paying the premium of Rs. 9,640/- ( Rs. Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fourty only ) for one year. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
2. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 07.04.2004 during the period of validity of Insurance within Maner Police Station near Srinagar Village colliding with a Truck resulting with the front portion of the vehicle seriously damaged besides other losses in body and in engine.
3. An information to this effect was given to the Officer Incharge, Maner Police Station on 07.04.2004 by Sri Indrajeet Kumar Singh the husband of the complainant.( Vide Annexure – 2 )
4. An information to this effect was also given to the Insurance Company and subsequently a claim petition claiming the cost of parts and accessories amounting to Rs. 40,940.35/- ( Rs. Fourty Thousand Nine Hundred Fourty and Thirty Five Paise only ), Rs. 34,652.09/- ( Rs. Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Two and Nine paise only ) purchased from Mysore Motor, Patna dated 22.04.2004 and 24.04.2004 respectively besides labour charge amounting to Rs. 65,000/- ( Rs. Sixty Five Thousand only ) with estimate for the same by B.K. Auto Works, Maner Patna dated 08.12.2004 was claimed. ( Vide Annexure – 3,3A, 4 )
5. During the process of grant of claim the officer of the Insurance Company advised to get the vehicle completed and the vehicle was completed and a sum of Rs. 40,940/- ( Rs. Fourty Thousand Nine Hundred Fourty only ) + Rs. 34,652/- ( Rs. Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Two only ) was paid by the complainant to M/s Mysore Motors, Patna against the cost if parts vide their cash memo dated 24.04.2004 and 22.04.2004 besides labour charge Rs. 65,000/- ( Rs. Sixty Five Thousand only ). 
6. A sum of Rs. 2,600/- ( Rs. Two Thousand Six Hundred only ) was also paid to carry the said accidental vehicle from the spot of accident to Maner Garrage. ( Vide Annexure – 5 )
7. After calculation the amount against the cost of parts as per Annexure – 3,3A,4 plus cost of labour charge as per annexure – 5, and cost of labour charge total comes to Rs. 1,43,192.44/- ( Rs. One Lac Fourty Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two and Fourty Four Paise only ) of which the opposite party no. 1 should have paid.
8. The Insurance Company demanded the photo copies of papers of the vehicle registration Book, certificate of Fitness, Driving License and insurance, which were supplied by the petitioner.

All the valid papers in original were seen and their photocopies including registration Book, Insurance Claim Petition were filed before the Insurance Company, the opposite party no. 1 which are in their record.

9. In course of their investigation by the Insurance Company it could be known that the vehicle being driven by the driver namely Vidya Nand Kumar was not holding a valid driving License to drive a heavy vehicle when the original driving license submitted by the complainant was valid for light vehicle and for heavy vehicle also.( Vide Annexure – 7 )
10. The Insurance Company at their own end verified the driving License and told the husband of the complainant, Indrajeet kumar Singh that the license of Driver produced by the owner was not valid for driving of Heavy vehicle and therefore in coercion and threaten took the signature of Indrajeet Kumar Singh on behalf of the complainant that the complainant had agreed for less amount than the amount claimed.
11. The complainant has not authorized Indrajeet Kumar Singh for the said agreement and therefore, the agreement of less amount as accepted by Indrajeet Kumar Singh on behalf of the complainant carries no weight so the complainant did not took the agreed amount and demanded the entire amount which the Insurance Company did not pay and said that the driver had no valid license so they would not pay now, any one to this complaint petition to this court.
12. The complainant submitted as below :

1. Vehicle was properly registered.
2. The vehicle had also properly insured for Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three Lac only ) as comprehensive.
3. The driving license produced by Vidya Nath Kumar was valid one to may knowledge and if there was any left, i was not aware.
4. Sri Indrajeet Kumar Singh, the husband of the complainant was not authorized to sign on any agreement on her behalf so his signature upon the surveyor letter bear no value.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1 in his written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The case as framed and filed is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed at the very outset.
2. The complainant is deliberately not bringing on record the complete certificate of Insurance.
3. From perusal of the case of the complainant itself it will appear that the manner of occurrence as alleged is false and from the case itself it will appear that the story of accident is a blatant lie.
4. The case of accident is falsified from perusal of the alleged S D Entry as well.
5. It is denied that any claim form was ever filled by the complainant. No as such annexed with the complainant as Annexure – 3,3A and 4 was ever made available to the answering opposite party.
6. From perusal of the driving license annexed to the complainant it will appear that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license and hence whatever the damage or claim is / are denied and complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
7. From perusal of the SDE it will appear that the husband of the complainant appears perhaps was driving the vehicle but has made out a different case for the reason that he was not having a driving license at all and that the alleged driver ( opposite party no. 3 ) was having a driving license but unfortunately was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle and hence in any situation the company ( opposite party no. 1 ) was / is not liable for any compensation.
8. There is absolutely material proving that any claim was made with the Insurance Company.
9. No permit has been brought on record and this is deliberate for the reason that the vehicle was plying without permit.
10. No paper as claimed in Para – 10 was ever supplied to the answering opposite party.
11. No paper in original were ever shown to the answering opposite party.
12. The statement made in Para – 13 is denied being a blatant lie.
13. No damage as alleged was caused in the alleged said accident will appear from perusal of the SDE itself. From perusal of the case itself it will appear that the statement made in Para – 14 speaks much.
14. Further more from perusal of Para – 15 (iii) it will appear that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and vagueness of the case appears from perusal of Para – 15 (iv) also.

We have narrated the facts asserted by both the parties in foregoing paragraphs. However, at the cost of repetition we are narrating the fact party in order to record all finding.

It is the case of the complainant that she is registered owner of truck BR – 1G – 8454 which was insured with opposite party no. 1 for comprehensive insurance of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three Lac only ) Vide annexure – 1. The said vehicle met with an accident on 07.03.2004 in which front portion of the vehicle was seriously damaged besides other losses. Thereafter vide annexure – 2 the information was given to the Officer - in - charge of Maner Police Station on same day i.e. 07.04.2004. It is case of the complainant that information was given to Insurance Company with detail of the cost etc. mentioned vide annexure – 3,3A and 4. As per advise of the Insurance Company the vehicle got repaired and thus the total expenditure incurred in complete repair of the truck in question comes to 1,43,192.44/-. It has been further asserted in Para – 11 of the complaint petition that all valid papers demanded by the Opposite Party no. 1 were given to opposite party no. 1 with insurance claim petition. It has been further asserted that insurance company, after verification, told the husband of the complainant namely Indrajeet Kumar Singh that driver was not having valid license for driving heavy vehicle and therefore in coercion and threat the opposite party no. 1 obtained the signature of her husband showing that complainant had agreed for less amount than amount claimed. The complainant has denied to have authorised her husband for signing the agreement paper on her behalf.

On behalf of the opposite party written statement has been filed stating therein that opposite party no. 1 denied that any claim was ever filed by the complainant and the copy of Annexure – 3,3A and 4 were ever made available to opposite party. It has been stated in Para – 7 of the written statement that from perusal of driving license annexed with the complaint it appears that driver was not holding a valid and effective license and from SDE. ( annexure – 2 ) it appears that perhaps her husband was driving the vehicle. In Para – 10 of written statement it has been asserted that no permit has been brought on the record for the reason that vehicle was plying without permit. In Para – 11 of the written statement the fact asserted in Par a- 10 of the complaint has been denied. On behalf of the complainant a rejoinder has been filed in which it is stated that all the paper were filed in the office of the Insurance Company. The agreement paper between Ajay Kumar Singh ( Surveyor ) and her husband has been annexed which is dated 12.03.2005.

A petition has also been filed by the complainant praying the Forum that the date of accident may be read07.04.2004 and not 07.03.2003 because 07.03.2003 has been written due to mistake. Complainant has asserted that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was driven by driver and not by her husband.

The fact whether the complainant has submitted the required paper with opposite party no. 1 or not appears to be matter of dispute as the complaint petition and written statement speaks divergent facts in this regard.

From bare perusal of Annexure – 1, 2 and 3, 3A and 4 it is crystal clear that accident took place and the vehicle got repaired by complainant. The existence of the documents dated 12.03.2005 i.e. “ acceptance note ” filed by the complainant with rejoinder clearly shows that there was some sort of agreement between surveyor of opposite party no. 1 Ajay Kumar Singh ( on behalf of opposite party no. 1 ) and complainant husband ( Indrajeet Kumar Singh ). This document has neither being accepted nor being denied by opposite party no. 1.

In view of the facts stated above we direct the complainant to file all the relevant documents with proper claim petition before the appropriate authority ( Opposite party no. 1 ) within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order. If such claim is filed by the complainant with all relevant documents, then opposite party no. 1 is directed to furnish a receipt in this regard to the complainant and thereafter the opposite party no. 1 is directed to process the entire claim petition within two months thereafter in accordance with law.

This complaint petition is disposed off in term and direction made above.

                                                  Member                                                             President