District Consumer Forum, Bokaro
Consumer Case No.-74 /2009
Sri Biraj Kumar S/o Sri Vijay Kumar Singh
R/o Pandey Medico, Kunwar Singh Colony, Gandhipath Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
(Jharkhand)
Vs.
1. Senior Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Divisional Office, Bokaro at City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro.
2. Senior Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Divisional Office, Hindustan Building, Bistupur, Main Road, Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand)
Present-
S.M. Alam, President
Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment-23/12/2009
Date of Case filing-13/10/2009
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed the present case against the opposite parties for payment of Rs. 173605 towards cost of repairing, purchase of spare parts and replacement of essential items of the Bus with 18% interest, besides Rs. 20000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as cost of present proceeding.
2 Brief fact of the case is that the complainant is a owner of Bus bearing registration No. JH-09-G 1495 Engine No. 60D62472896, Chassis No. 412073DT2116059 and model No. 2006 and the said vehicle was purchased under HPA with TATA Motor Ltd., Mumbai. The complainant obtained comprehensive insurance policy vides no. 333000/31/2009/701 and after completion of formalities, the opposite party NO.2 issued the said insurance policy which was valid from 08.05.2008 to 07.05.2009. It covered O/D claim at Rs. 75000/- and P/A claim for owner and driver RS. 200000 /-.The complainants also obtained other papers of the vehicle as, such R.C. Book, Tax Tocken, Fitness Certificate, Road Permit and started to ply the said Bus from TATA to Bhagalpur Via Ranchi, Rangarh, Hazaribag, Dumka, Deoghar and Bokaro. On11.07.2008 the complainant was himself driving the said Bus from Bhagalpur to TATA having valid driving License vide No. 5562/87 Patna and also got renewal at Bokaro vide No. 601/99 corresponding from 7 number 12:3:42/08 dated 10.11.2008 valid up to 27.02.2011. At the same date at about 1: 30 A.M. night the complainant lost balance of the Bus in saving the life of Cow, the Bus dashed with tree near Sanjay Gandhi Chock Maithan, and on account of the said accident front of the Bus badly damaged, however no casualty was taken place. On written complaint Maithan Police registered a Sanha No. 382/08 dated 16.07.2008 in regard to the said accident. The complainant given written information to the opposite party No.1 regarding the said accident and for issuance claim form and made request for support survey. After completion of lawful formalities, the Bus was brought in the Ranadoby Builder, Jodhadih More, Chas for its repairing and replacement of part and thereafter, the complainant file dully filled up claim form along with related papers in support of his claim. The complainant paid Rs. 150000/- to Ranabody Builder for repair and replacement of spare parts of the said bus. He also spent Rs. 23605/- in purchasing spare parts which were not available in Ranabody Builder, Chas. The complainant was went to get insurance claim but surprisingly he received repudiation letter dated 28.08.2009 issued by the opposite party no.2 on the ground that the driving license of the complainant was not valid, and not issued from D.T.O. Patna and found fake. The complainant was fade up due to reason of repudiation of insurance claim, as he was having valid and bonafied driving license. The complainant obtained the part of the said D.L. No. 5562/87 from DTO Patna vide No. 6301 dated 23.09.2009. The D.T.O. Patna issued certification with D.L. No.5562/87 issued from his office and the same is genuine.
3 In the light of facts and circumstances, it clearly appears that repudiation of insurance claim by the opposite party No.2 is illegal and unjustified, which constituted deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and on account of deficiency in service of opposite parties, the complainant have suffering many faults in terms of physical and mental agony and also economic loss and damage and hence he is entitled to get claim and compensation from the opposite parties.
4 Upon issuance of notices, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement, stating there in that the present Consumer Complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no valid cause of action. The insurance is never for commercial purpose; rather it is for the purpose of indemnity. It is further stated that the complainant pertaining to repute the claim which is not maintainable under contract of insurance, since driver’s clause inserted under the policy stands utterly violated and accordingly the claim has been repudiated without any prejudice. The complainant was having fake license at the time of accident and thereafter, the reason of repudiation of insurance claim of the complainant is fake license which has been supported on verification from DTO Patna. Thus it is clear that reason of repudiation of claim has been found fake driving License during verification at DTO Patna from where original D.L. No. 5562/87 was issued, as such the driver’s clause inserted in policy n question stands violated at the end of policy holder. The complainant cannot be permitted to gain unlawful gain.
4 Thus from the above facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that there is no deficiency in providing service on the part of the opposite parties, and accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief sought against the opposite parties and present consumer complaint is fit to be dismissed.
5 Both the parties have been heard. We have gone through the entire case records and the documents filed on behalf the parties. Available in the case records is a copy of the memo No. 6301 dated 23.09.2009 issued from the office of the District Transport Officer, Patna. The same has been filed as annexure 10 by the complainant. On perusal of the said memo it is observed that the Driving Licence No. 5562/87 Patna was converted from Private to Professional. Later on the said Licence was renewed twice by the DTO, Bokaro vide No. 17130/07 valid up to 27.10.2008 and vide no. 12342/08 valid up to 27.10.2011. It is concluded that the Driving Licence No. 5562/87 Patna issued in the name of the complainant-Driver is not fake as contended by the opposite parties while repudiating the complainant’s claim on the ground of fake Driving Licence No. 5562/87/ Patna. In view of above the said repudiation is not justified. We, therefore, hold the opposite parties negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant.
6 As far as the quantum of the repair charges of the damaged vehicle No. Jh09G 1495 in question is concerned, it is found that the complainant has filed the relevant bills pertaining to the same as detailed bellow as per annexure 8, 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D- of the complainant.
Serial No. Bill No.& date Agency Name Amount
i Nil dated 15.9.08 R.B.Builders Rs.150000.00 Jodhdih More, Chas
ii Nil dated12.9.08 RameshAutomobile Rs.3630.00
Jodhdih More, Chas
Iii 0263/2008-09 Nirsha Break down Rs.4000.00
20.07.2008 Service, GT Road, Nirsha
Iv Nil, 10.9.2008 Toshiba Motor, Rs.8200.00
Jodhadih More, Chas
V Nil, 12.09.08 Sanjeev Hardware Rs.7775.00
Jodhadih More, Chas
7 As far as bill no. nil dated 15.09.2008 of M/s Rana Body Builder, Jodhdih More, Chas for Rs. 150000/- is concerned, it is observed that the bill does not contain any break up of materials and labour input in repair of the damage of the vehicle in question. In view of the same this bill cannot be justified. As such the same as per complainant’s annexure 8 is not allowed. The rest bills as detailed above from serial no. ii to V are only allowed, totaling to Rs. 23605/-.
8 In view of the above, the opposite parties held liable to pay Rs. 23605/- to the complainant, besides other reliefs.
9 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 23605/- (Rs. Twenty thee thousand six hundred five) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. The above opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand) only as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President