State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, The New India ... vs Bijoy Kumar Das on 22 July, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/515/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/01/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/88/2013 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore) 1. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 39, Diamond Harbour Branch, P.O. & P.S. - Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008. 2. The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4, Mangoe Lane, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata - 700 001. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Bijoy Kumar Das S/o Late Tarak Das, Kalua, Nabapally, P.O. Joka, P.S. Thakurpukur, South 24 Pgs. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. N. R. Mukherjee Mr. Sourya Mukherjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Some Nath Gangopadhyay., Advocate ORDER
Date: 22-07-2015 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya This appeal is directed against the Order dated 20-01-2014, passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas, in C.C. No. 88/2013 whereby the said complaint has been allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OPs have preferred this appeal.
Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he lodged an insurance claim with the OP No. 1 pertaining to the damage caused to his vehicle over a road accident on 19-12-2011. However, the OP No. 2 by its letter dated 26-09-2012, repudiated his claim. Hence, the case.
Case of the OPs, on the other hand, is that on 19-12-2011, the insured vehicle was driven by one Mr. Sunil Mondal. As revealed from the documents collected by the Investigator from RTO, Alipore dated 14-03-2012, the driving licence (Transport) of the driver of the ill-fated vehicle was valid up to 09-12-2011, while the accident took place on 19-12-2011. As per Sec. 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if renewal of licence is made more than 30 days after the date of expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed from the date of renewal. It revealed from the RTO, South 24 Parganas, Alipore that the driver of the insured vehicle applied for driving licence (transport) on 25-04-2012 and the same was valid till 22-04-2015. So, in between the period from 09-12-2011 to 24-04-2012, his driving licence was ineffective. It goes to show that the driver of the insured vehicle was driving the same although he did not have any valid licence to do so. It was a clear case of breach of violation of policy terms and conditions and law as well. So, they were fully justified in repudiating the Complainant's claim.
The Ld. District Forum awarded the case in favour of the Complainant directing the OPs to pay Rs. 1,29,077/- as insurance benefit with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing the case. The OPs were further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
We are to consider in this appeal as to whether the impugned order is perfect from factual/legal aspects of the case, or not.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that because of violation of policy terms and conditions, they repudiated the claim of the Respondent. At the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not holding any valid licence to drive such vehicle, which is a clear breach of policy terms and conditions and as such, they have rightly repudiated the claim of the Respondent. However, the Ld. District Forum most arbitrarily allowed the case in favour of the Respondent. Therefore, for the ends of justice, the impugned order be set aside. In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 487 and three decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC), I (2011) CPJ 73 (NC), and I (2011) CPJ 69 (NC).
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that he was holding all the requisite statutory papers, viz., Goods Carriage Permit, Route Permit, Certificate of Fitness, Tax Token, Insurance Policy and the same were valid as on the date of accident. When his vehicle met with an accident, due intimation was communicated to the Insurer and also police complaint was lodged promptly. After receiving claim form from the Appellant No. 1, he submitted the same along with necessary papers to satisfy the need of the Appellants. Thereafter, as per instruction of the Appellant, he repaired the vehicle at a cost of Rs. 1,29,077/-. Although he regularly followed up the matter with the Appellants, the Appellant No. 2 repudiated the claim alleging that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. Such repudiation was totally baseless. Even assuming that the allegation of the Appellants was true, it requires to be stated that a driving licence remains valid for one month even after its expiry. Immediately after the accident, the driver left the job and never made contact with the Respondent. There is no need to consider the Survey Report in the instant appeal because the Appellants have neither before the Ld. District Forum nor before this Commission has disputed the quantum of loss of the Respondent. The Survey Report is vague and not at all believable and does not bear any evidentiary value as the said Survey Report was prepared on 20-02-2012, whereas, it is mentioned in the said report that the spot survey report and 15 photos were received from the claims hub on 09-03-2012. The Ld. District Forum being quite aware of the settled principle laid down under sections 3 and 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has rightly ordered the Appellants to pay the decretal amount. There is no rule/provision that Sec. 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be read in conjunction with Sec. 15 of the said Act. Moreover, Sec. 14 of the Act, purely deals with the validity, effectiveness of the driving licence; whereas, Sec. 15 of the Act only deals with the renewal of the driving licence. Therefore, the impugned order be upheld.
We have gone through the relevant provisions of Sec. 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While the former deals with "Currency of licence to motor vehicle", the latter deals with "Renewal of driving licence". There is no ambiguity in the wordings of Sec. 14 of the M.V. Act, where it is clearly stipulated that, ".... Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry". It is but natural that officials of claim settlement section of the Appellants are reasonably acquainted with the provisions of law as laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act. In any case, ignorance of law cannot be a justified alibi to act irrationally and repudiate a legitimate claim. Therefore, we do not find any justification behind repudiation of the claim of the Respondent by the Appellants on this ground alone. In terms of the contract of insurance, Insurer has a sacrosanct responsibility to settle a bona fide claim, which they cannot fiddle with. In such a scenario, we do not find any justification whatsoever on the part of the Appellant No. 2 to repudiate the claim of the Respondent on the solitary ground of not having a valid and effective driving licence of the driver concerned as on the date of accident. True, in terms of Sec. 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without having effective driving licence, no person is allowed to ply a vehicle. At the same time, since in terms of Sec. 14 of the said Act, a licence remains effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry, the driver of the ill-fated vehicle cannot be hold guilty of breach of the 1988 Act and the accident being occurred during currency of the driving licence, repudiation of claim of the Respondent is totally unjustified and unacceptable.
Now, coming to the survey report, we find that the Surveyor has taken into consideration the least value between the manufacturer's amount vis-à-vis billed amount. However, no document is placed on record to show the Manufacturer's amount/printed price list in respect of the parts concerned. In absence of supporting documents, it left us with no scope to put the same under scrutiny and satisfy ourselves about the veracity of the same. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the Surveyor duly apprised the Respondent about the price difference of concerned parts to enable him to firm up his mind before proceeding with replacement of the concerned parts from the service centre in question at his own risk. Since the Surveyor did not appear before the Ld. District Forum to prove his survey report by tendering due deposition over there, it was incumbent upon the Appellants to justify the same. However, they too failed to place on record requisite documents and so, we cannot accept the value figured out by the Surveyor. On the other hand, there is no dispute as to the fact that the Respondent has incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,29,077/- to repair the vehicle and he has submitted all the requisite bills pertaining to such payment with the Insurer. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the impugned order whereby the Appellants have been directed to reimburse the total expenditure incurred by the Respondent in order to repair his vehicle. However, insofar as interest and compensation cannot be awarded simultaneously, the impugned order is modified suitably to remedy the legal lacunae in this regard.
In the result, the instant appeal succeeds in part.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Respondent, but without any order as to costs. The impugned order is modified as under:-
The Appellants/OPs are directed to pay, within 40 days from the date of this order, a sum of Rs. 1,29,077/- to the Respondent/Complainant towards reimbursement of repairing charge of the insured vehicle together with interest @ 10% p.a. over this amount from the date of filing of the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum, i.e., 22-02-2013, till full and final payment is made. In addition, the Appellants/OPs are liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant as litigation cost.
Let the LCR be sent to the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas along with a copy of this order. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER