BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, MAYURBHANJ, BARIPADA
C.D. Case No. 27 of 2007
IN THE MATTER OF
Sri Jagendra Kumar Sethi
Vill : Rogang,
Po- Kuliposi
P.S. Karanjia
Dist- Mayurbhanj
………………………………… Petitioner
-VRS-
Branch manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Baripada Branch,
Roxy Road, Baripada …………………………………Opposite Party
Present:
Sri H. K. Panigrahi, President
Smt. Anupama Mohanta, Member
Sri K.C. Nayak, Member
Counsels:
For the Complainant: Sri S. K. Dash & Associates
For the Opposite party: Sri Bijan Das
Date of Hearing: 23-11-09
Date of Order:24-12-09
J u d g m e n t
Sri K.C. Nayak, Member
Complaint filed by the petitioner u/s 12 of C.P. Act’86 for redressal of the dispute alleging deficiency in service.
The petitioner insured his Mahindra Jeep bearing No. OR-02V-6385 with the OP (National Insurance) vide Pol. No. 163001/31/05/630000202 valid from 29.09.05 to 28.09.06. He engaged one Chandrakanta Mohakud to drive the said vehicle after due verification of his DL No. 5317/2002-03 and being satisfied over his test driving. During currency of the policy, the said vehicle met an accident on 13.3.06 vide SDE No. 299 dt. 14.03.06, Karanjia, P.S., causing damage to the vehicle. The petitioner lodged a claim before the opposite party which was repudiated vide its letter 163001/M.Cl/1609/06 dt. 04.09.06 on the ground that the driver had no effective D.L. at the time of accident. He alleges that the OP deliberately & arbitrarily rejected the claim causing him heavy monetary loss and mental agony. The OP is deficient in service. He prays for repairing cost of the vehicle with compensation & cost from OP. He further files written version with citation in favour of his contention.
He relies on the following documents.
1) Xerox copy of RC Book of OR-02V-6385 ……….Annexure-1
2) Xerox copy of Policy No.
163001/31/05/630000202 ……….Annexure-2
3) Xerox copy of DL of
Chandrakanta Mohakud ……….Annexure-3
4) Xerox copy of Letter to
Karanjia PS dt. Nill ……….Annexure-4
5) Xerox copy of Extract of
SDE no 299 dt. 14.03.06 ……….Annexure-5
6) Xerox copy of Pre-Repudiation
Letter dt. 25.05.06 by OP ……… Annexure-6
7) Xerox copy of Repudiation
Letter dt. 04.09.06 by OP ……….Annexure-7
8) Xerox copy of Estimate on
OR-02V-6385 ……….Annexure-8
OP( National Insurance) appears through its counsel and submits WS admitting to have issued policy against the alleged vehicle which met an accident on 13.03.06. On getting the intimation OP deputed surveyor Mr. Srit Kumar Das to survey and access the loss.
The insured- petitioner submitted the claim form before OP on Dt. 14-03-06, the surveyor submitted survey report on dt.25-05-06 assessing the lost to the tune of Rs. 21182.50.
The DL No. 5317/2002-03, LA – Raipur was verified by OP which was found to be a fake one as the LA, Raipur (CG) has not issued such DL. OP in its letter No. 486 Dt. 25-05-06 send a show cause to the petitioner asking him to furnish the reason as to why the claims shall not be repudiated on the ground of fake DL of the alleged driver which is a gross violation of the policy condition. The said letter was not replied by the petitioner and finally the OP repudiated the said claim as per its letter No. 1609 dt. 04/09/06. OP alleges that the driver C. Mohakud (23) is a permanent resident of Baripada possessed a DL issued by a Raipur LA obviously creates suspicion and the owner (Petitioner) knowing fully well about the said fake DL, appointed him to drive his vehicle which is a violation of policy condition and thus repudiation of the said OD claim. There is no deficiency in service, hence the case be dismissed.
OP relies on the following document to substantiate it’s case.
1) Investigator’s report ………….. Annexure A
2) Certificate issued by LA, Raipur (C.G) ………….. Annexure B
3) Surveyor’s report ………….. Annexure C
On hearing the pleadings from both parties and going through the documents and citations filed by both parties we frame the following issues to determine the case.
1) Whether the claim comes under the purview of CP Act.
2) Whether DL in question was genuine or a fake one.
3) Whether repudiation of damage claim is justified by OP on the grounds of invalid and fake DL.
4) To what extent of relief is payable if claim is allowed.
5) Whether there is deficiency in service by the OP.
Issue 1
On perusal of the records it’s revealed that the vehicle in question was registered under IV i.e. as commercial vehicle and the vehicle was placed for insurance to be covered under commercial policy. The owner of the vehicle also engaged a professional driver to ply the said vehicle. So there is priema facie evidence that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. As such the case does not come under the purview of CP Act.
Issues 2, 3 & 4
The petitioner in his plaint as well as in the written version states that the driver Chandrakanta Mohakud possessed a valid DL bearing no 5317/2002-03, LA, Raipur which was being renewed from time to time. After being satisfied over the test driving of the said driver, he allowed him to drive his vehicle. So he has committed no breach of policy condition. He cites the decision of Supreme Court reported in 2006 (II) OLR 700, Lalchand vrs Oriental in favour of his argument. Also he cites the decision of National Commission reported in 2009 (III) XPR in support of his version.
But we are not going to buy the pleadings and arguments advanced by the petitioner in respect of verification of alleged DL No. 5317/2002-03, LA, Raipur because he has not produced certified copy of the said DL which has been disputed by the OP. On the other hand the OP obtained the certificate of the said DL issued by LA, Raipur and filed as Annexure –B in which the licensing authority, Raipur states that “No Such DL has been issued by them”. The certificate issued by the licensing authority is an authentic public document. More over, the so called test driving conducted by the petitioner is nothing but travesty of truth. He is not the competent authority to conduct a test driving of a driver of threshold stage. A young driver of 20 years hardly crossing “teen” who is a permanent resident of Baripada town could posses a license issued by LA, Raipur(CG) & it is also renewed from time to time at Raipur only creates suspicion. So, there is flagrant violation of terms of insurance policy as well as breach of sec. 88 (I) of MV Act’88 and Rules.
We are in complete agreement with OPs latest citation case vide revision petition no 256/2009 decided on dt. 25-02-09 by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in which it held that “Repudiation of claim on ground that License of driver at the time of accident was found to be fake on verification, is justified”. “Where originally the license was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality”. Hence the case quoted in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs Laxmi Narain Dhut is squarely applicable to the case on hand.
Thus the above issues are answered accordingly.
Issue 5:
The accident occurred on the dt.13-03-06 the claim was intimated before the OP on 14-03-06. The OP immediately deputed surveyor who submitted his report on 25-05-06. On verification of the alleged DL which was found to be a fake one, the OP sent a show cause on 25-05-06 to the claimant as to why his claim should not be repudiated since violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and MV Act’88. The claimant (petitioner) did not reply and ultimately the OP repudiated the claim on 04-09-06. Therefore in our considered opinion OP is in no way deficient in rendering service.
In consideration of legal aspect of the case in hand and deficiency, the case lacks merit, hence dismissed ab initio .Hence ordered.
Order
The case being devoid of merit is dismissed on contest. The parties are to bear their own cost.
The order is being pronounced in open forum this day 24th of December 2009 with seal and signature.
Sd/- sd/- sd/-
Smt. A. Mohanta Sri. H.K. Panigrahi Sri K.C. Nayak
Member President Member
D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd