Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CALCUTTA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President &
Mr. Monoranjan Ghosh, Member
M/S. CIMA ROAD LINES—Appellant
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent
S.C. Case No. 231/O of 1997—Decided on 15.5.1998
AN INSURANCE COMPANY'S REPUDIATION OF A CLAIM ON THE GROUND OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE BEING INVALID MAY CONSTITUTE A DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE IF THE DRIVER HAD A VALID LICENSE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - INSURANCE - REPUDIATION OF CLAIM - VALIDITY OF DRIVER'S LICENSE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - COMPENSATION - [SECTION 17] - THE COURT HELD THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S REPUDIATION OF THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE BEING INVALID WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, CONSTITUTED A DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE, AND AWARDED COMPENSATION TO THE COMPLAINANT.
Fact of the Case:
THE COMPLAINANT'S VEHICLE WAS GUTTED BY FIRE DURING THE INSURANCE POLICY PERIOD. THE INSURANCE COMPANY APPOINTED A SURVEYOR WHO ASSESSED THE LOSS AND OFFERED A SETTLEMENT AMOUNT, WHICH THE COMPLAINANT AGREED TO ACCEPT. HOWEVER, THE INSURANCE COMPANY LATER REPUDIATED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE WAS INVALID.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DRIVER HAD A VALID LICENSE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S REPUDIATION OF THE CLAIM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT HELD THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS GUILTY OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AND AWARDED COMPENSATION TO THE COMPLAINANT.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE DRIVER HAD A VALID LICENSE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT. 2. WHETHER THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S REPUDIATION OF THE CLAIM CONSTITUTED A DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S REPUDIATION OF THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE BEING INVALID WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, CONSTITUTED A DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE, AND AWARDED COMPENSATION TO THE COMPLAINANT.
Final Decision: THE COMPLAINT WAS ALLOWED, AND THE COMPLAINANT WAS AWARDED COMPENSATION OF RS. 5,18,810/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM FROM JUNE 1996 UNTIL PAYMENT.
Mr. Justice A.K. Bhattacharjee, President — This is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant's case is as follows :
2. The complainant M/s. Cima Road Lines had insured its Trailer Tractor No. AS-01/D 5716 with the Howarah Divisional Office of the opposite party the Indian National Insurance Co. Ltd. on payment of a consideration of Rs. 22,500/- and got a comprehensive policy of insurance, valid for the period from 5.12.1994 to 4.12.1995. During the currency of the insurance the vehicle on its way to Dhulyajan caught fire on 16.11.1995 and was completely gutted. The accident was intimated to the Insurance Company by a letter dated 16.11.1995. The opposite party appointed a Surveyor named Bibhuti Das to survey and assess the loss on the 6th February, 1996. The said Surveyor after necessary investigation confirmed the accident and offered a sum of Rs. 5,18,810/- in settlement of the claim on "cash loss", although according to the complainant the vehicle was completely gutted. The complainant agreed to accept the sum as it appeared to them that the opposite party was inclined to take a procrastinated decision in the matter. The complainant also complied with all the requirements of the Surveyor and the opposite party. The opposite party however, did not take any further action on the offer of the Surveyor and at last by a letter dated 16.12.1996 repudiated the claim on a flimsy ground that the driver of the vehicle possessed a licence which was non- effective and non-operative. The complainant being aggrieved by this decision of the Insurance Company has filed this case claiming the agreed amount earlier offered with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
3. The opposite party contests the case, its only point of contest being that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence when the accident took place. It has stated in its written objection that the driver Shri Gurmit Singh was holding a driving licence No.507 of 1981 issued by the Licensing Authority, Ganjam, Orissa. It was, however, found on investigation that the said licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ganjam in renewal of the initial licence No. 5816/78 issued by the Licensing Authority, Kamrup, Assam. On enquiry from Kamrup it has been learned that no such licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Kamrup. Hence it has been stated that the original licence being a fake one, the subsequent renewal of the same did not create a valid licence.
4. The points for determination are—
(i) If the driver of the affected vehicle Gurmit Singh had any valid licence when the vehicle met with the accident.
(ii) If the repudiation of the claim on the ground of the absence of a valid licence as alleged by the opposite party constituted any deficiency in service, and
(iii) What relief, if any, the complainant is entitled to.
Finding with reason
5. Both parties have produced documents in support of their respective claims. The Insurance Company has produced a letter dated 6.5.1996 from one Sagar Investigating Agency. The letter is as follows :
"Sagar Investigating Agency
Santipur, Guwahati
To
The Regional Manager,
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Bhagagarh, Ghy.-5
Ref. Verification of D/L No. 5816/78 dated 11.4.1978
Sir,
In connection of verification of D/L No. 5816/78 dated 11.4.1978 in the name of Shri Gurmit Singh, District Transport Officer, Kamrup (West Zone) Guwahati had been approached. He informed in written that the driving licence No. 5816/78 dated 11.4.1978 in the name of Shri Gurmit Singh was not issued from this office. The original application written to D.T.O., Kamrup (West Zone) Guwahati alongwith his information is enclosed here. Since the D.T.O., Kamrup (East Zone) was established in the year of 1992 and the said D/L was issued in the year 1978, hence authority of this office has not agreed to give any written informations, but verbally said that the said D /L was not issued from that office.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Bankim Das"
6. It woul
