ORDER

Poonam V. Maharshi, Member.—Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 29/06/2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai in Complaint No.235 of 2014 the original opponent has preferred this appeal. Parties to this appeal shall be called and referred by their original nomenclature as given in the complaint.

2. The brief facts of the case can be summarized as under:

The complainant is a company, the opponent is an insurance company. The complainant had taken insurance policy for his truck from the opponent bearing policy No. 12010031120100001914. The Complainant’s truck had met with an accident at Khed Taluka District Pune and caused loss to cabin and front part of the truck. Thereafter on 07/08/2012 Khed Police station recorded panchanama about the accident. The complainant sent letter dated 13th August, 2012 along with Motor Claim Form dated 14th August, 2012 along with estimate prepared by the Chhanan Industries dated 11/08/2012. Thereafter, the complainant on 20/05/2013 sent one e-mail regarding original vehicle documents to the surveyor one Mr.S.S. Bright for verification. On 27/09/2013 the complainant sent e-mail to opponent asking about the status of his claim. On 30/09/2013 he got letter from opponent that the driving licence of the driver was invalid at the time of driving of the said truck. Thereafter, on 14/12/2013 the complainant sent another letter for validity of driving licence which was required for claim and requested to settle the claim. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive the letter dated 27/05/2014 that the claim filed by the complainant is rejected on the ground that the driving licence of the driver who was driving the truck was invalid. The complainant has contended that the opponent had grabbed the amount of Rs.9,21,400/- and not gave the claim till date and thus, the opponent has wrongly denied the claim of the complainant and committed deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opponent the opponent appeared and filed written statement and has contended that the claim under the policy is not payable as it is not covered under the policy terms and conditions. The complainant has failed to prove his case and he is simply making baseless allegations against the opponent. Policy of insurance is a contract which is subject to the terms and conditions and the liability of the Insurance company is limited and strictly as per the terms and conditions and as per rules and regulations, guidelines, exceptions and exclusions of the policy. Further, the opponent has contended that as per the documents submitted by the complainant to the opponent it states that the Load Challan is dated 02/08/2012 while accident occurred on 06/08/2012. The opponent has further submitted that they do not admit estimate dated 11/08/2012 submitted by the complainant and has submitted that the complainant be put to strict proof of it. The opponent has further contended that as per the documents and RTO extract Mr.Premnath Karamraj Pandey was driving the truck bearing NO.MH-04-BG-5918 which was loaded with the hazardous chemical at the time of accident and as per the RTO extract driving licence expired on 18/01/2012, i.e. prior to the date of accident and renewed w.e.f. 19/12/2012 to 18/01/2015. Hence, it was not valid at the time of accident. As per the RTO record hazardous goods endorsement was not mentioned in the driving licence and the training certificate of the driver for safe transportation of hazardous goods submitted by the insured is not genuine. The driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid driving licence to drive said vehicle as the hazardous endorsement is not mentioned by the RTO. So, the opponent was not liable to pay any claim to the complainant under the policy terms and conditions. The opponents further contended that the complainant has submitted the licence RTO extract to them al