State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Jagadish Prasad Chowdhury Since ... vs The Manager, M/S. Iffco Tokio General ... on 10 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/411/2016
SRI MANISH CHOWDHURY S/o. late jagadish prasad chowdhury
PRESENT ADDRESS - 105/2, KAREYA ROAD, P. S. KAREYA, KOL-70001724 PARAGANAS
SOUTH,WEST BENGAL.
SRI MANISH CHOWDHURY S/o. late jagadish prasad chowdhury
PRESENT ADDRESS - 105/2, KAREYA ROAD, P. S. KAREYA. KOL-70001724 PARAGANAS
SOUTH,WEST BENGAL.
SRI JAGADISH PRASAD CHOWDHURY SINCE DECEASED ON 27/11/2017
PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O LT. RAM PRASAD CHOWDHURY, 105/2, KAREYA ROAD,
KOLKATA- 700 017, P.S.- KAREYA, W.B.24 PARAGANAS SOUTH,WEST BENGAL.
SMT. MENOKA CHOWDHURY W/o. late jagadish prasad chowdjury
PRESENT ADDRESS - 105/2KAREYA ROAD , 24 PARAGANAS SOUTH,WEST BENGAL.
SRI RAJNISH CHOWDHURY S/o. lt. jagadish prasad chowdhury
PRESENT ADDRESS - 105/2, KAREYA ROAD. P. S. KAREYA. KOLKATA-700017 , 24
PARAGANAS SOUTH,WEST BENGAL.
SRI MANISH CHOWDHURY S/o. late jagadish prasad chowdhury
PRESENT ADDRESS - 105/2, KAREYA ROAD, P. S. KAREYA. KOLKATA-700017 , 24
PARAGANAS SOUTH,WEST BENGAL.
SRI ASHISH CHOWDHURY S/o. late jagadish prasad chowdhury
PRESENT ADDRESS - 105/2, KAREYA ROAD, P. S. KAREYA. KOL-70001724 PARAGANAS
SOUTH,WEST BENGAL.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
The Manager, M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
PRESENT ADDRESS - 9/1, Metro Towers, 1, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071.,WEST
BENGAL.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. AJEYA MATILAL , JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
SRI JAGADISH PRASAD CHOWDHURY SINCE DECEASED ON 27/11/2017, Ms.
Mousumi Chakraborty. (Advocate)
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
The Manager, M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. , Mr. Debojit Dutta.
(Advocate)
DATED: 10/03/2026
ORDER
Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member The instant appeal has been directed by the Appellant/Complainant u/s 15 of C.P. Act, 1986, assailing the final Order dated 18.04.2016 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit--II in CC/529/2015.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the erstwhile Appellant No.1/Complainant, since deceased, namely Sri Jagadish Prasad Chowdhury (hereinafter referred to as 'Complainant') filed a complaint case before the Ld. DCDRC concerned alleging deficiency in service against the Respondent/OP (hereinafter referred to as 'OP/Respondent/Insurance Company'). It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the present appeal said Jagadish Prasad Chowdhury expired and accordingly the legal heirs of the earstwhile complainant an Interlocutory Application being no. IA/434/2018. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed and the legal heirs of the deceased Appellant became the present Appellants/Appellants Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the instant Appeal. The deceased Complainant submitted in his petition of complaint that he was the owner of a vehicle bearing no. WB-03C-6892 (Truck) which was moving throughout India with the National permit. He took a Comprehensive Motor Policy from the OP/ Respondent vide policy no. 89560296 valid for the period 25.10.2014 to 24.10.2015 by paying the premium of Rs.41,000/- by cheque and Rs. 1,739/- by cash. The Complainant, since deceased, issued an authorization letter dated 08.04.2015 in favour of the driver of the said vehicle namely Sk. Manaf, son of Sk. Nazrul of village Debpur, Post-Debpur, P.S-Beldanga, Dist.- Murshidabad whose Driving license number was WB-0120030728264 where date of issue was 30.12.2003 valid up to 18.02.2018. Said driver got endorsement from the Beltala Motor Vehicle to drive light motor vehicle non-transport with effect from 30.12.2003 and transport vehicle M/HMV(REGID-CHASSIS)-Goods with effect from 30.12.2003 and last renewal was on 30.03.2015. In the last week of May, 2015 the Complainant sent the vehicle with the said driver along with authorization letter and driving license. On 04.06.2015 at about 6:25 P.M. when the vehicle was plying along National Highway 37 near Mohimirifing under the P.S. Bagori it collided with a gas tanker face to face and the vehicle was totally damaged and said driver as well as the khalasi died on spot. After receiving the message from the consigner the Complainant, since deceased, rushed to the spot and lodged a complaint before the Bagori P.S. against the driver of the offending vehicle under P.S. Jokholabondha vide P.S case no. 86/15 dated 07.06.2015. There was also a police report supporting the incident. Due to this accident the District Transport Officer, Nagaon, Assam issued a report dated 23.06.2015 in support of the damaged vehicle. In the said report Transport Officer mentioned the number of driving license as WB-1972/2007 which was totally unknown to the Complainant. The Complainant had no knowledge about the license which was seized by the transport officer at the place of incident. The erstwhile Complainant informed the matter to the insurer over phone and collected all the relevant papers from Nagaon, Assam. Thereafter, he submitted the claim form along with relevant papers. After the accident the vehicle was placed on garage for necessary repairing. The OP also appointed a surveyor and loss assessor. Said surveyor visited the auto- axis garage. From the said surveyor the Complainant/Appellant No.1, came to know that the vehicle was not in a condition to ply on road again. The declared value of the vehicle was Rs.19,00,000/-. The Complainant since deceased prayed before the insurer to supply the survey report but the OP refused to hand over the copy to the Complainant. On 21.08.2015 the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not carrying the correct driving license. The Complainant, since deceased, stated that said driver renewed his license from Calcutta Motor Vehicle on 03.03.2015 which had been annexed with the petition of complaint. On the last week of May, 2015 when the Complainant verified the driving license of the driver it was in order.
Further, the Complainant, since deceased has stated that after taking all precautions if there was any fraud accepted by the driver then the owner of the vehicle had no liability neither in the 3rd party claim nor in any own damage claim. The Complainant had also sent the legal notice on 10.10.2015 but to no effect. Therefore, the OP was liable to pay the claim and for their action the Complainant suffered tremendous physical and mental harassment as well as financial loss. Hence, the petition of complaint was filed praying for declaring total loss of the vehicle being no. WB-03C6892 to the extent of Rs.19,00,000/- and to direct the OPs to issue the cheque of the same amount to the petitioner along with direction upon OP to repair the said vehicle by their own cost and to hand over the same to the Complainant/Appellant No.1, like pre-accidental condition within a stipulated period with further Order of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.19,00,000/- from the date of filing till realization and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- or any other and further order or orders.
OP filed their written version before the Ld. DCDRC. In their written version OP admitted the issuance of Insurance Policy and the claim lodged by the owner of the vehicle on account of damaged vehicle due to accident. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that initially the Complainant submitted a driving license being no. 1972/07 which apparently seemed to be issued by Murshidabad license issuing office but on verification the same was found to be a fake license. Actually, it was issued in favour of another person namely Debasish Mishra which was possessed by the deceased driver at the time of alleged accident. Driving with fake Driving License by said deceased driver is nothing but violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance as well as clear violation of Law of the land.
The OP further stated that the policy of insurance was issued subject to terms and conditions of the said policy. The said driving license which was in possession of the deceased driver at the time of the accident, was the Driving license of one Debasish Mishra which was established by the MVI Inspector report. The Complainant/Owner of the vehicle tried to make out the case that at the time of alleged accident the driver was not possessing the license being no. 1972/2007 but the actual Driving license bearing no. WB-01-2003-0728264 issued from PVD, Kolkata. This story had been made out for the purpose of the case only. The original driving license was not seized by the police. Therefore, the OPs are not liable to pay claim on the ground that at the time of incident fake license was in the possession of the driver. Hence, the OP/Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Ld. DCDRC dismissed the complaint which is produced as under:
"Hence, Ordered That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP with penal cost and complainant shall have to pay the penal cost of Rs. 10,000/- to this Forum and it is imposed considering the complainant's attempt to produce some fake documents before this Forum to prove the genuinity of the driving license but his attempt is found completely frustrated due to his own vexatious act.
Complainant to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this order failing which 9% interest shall be assessed till its full realization and further penal action shall be started for which penalty and fine shall be imposed."
During course of final hearing Ld. Counsel for the present Appellants has submitted that the predecessor of the present Appellants paid premium of Rs.41,00,000/- by cheque and Rs.1,739/- by cash. The predecessor of the Appellants also issued an authorization letter in favour of the driver having driving license No. WB-0120030728264 which was issued on 30.12.2003 and the license was valid upto 18.02.2018. After the accident of the vehicle in question the driver of the vehicle and the khalasi died on spot. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged before Joknolabondhaa Police Station. The claim was lodged before the OP/Respondent. On 21.08.2015 the claim was repudiated on the ground that driving license was not correct.
The Ld. Counsel for the present Appellants has further submitted before this Commission that the Ld. DCDRC has failed to appreciate the difference between the meaning of own damage claim and 3rd party claim which has been clearly laid down in the policy under the heading of "Policy Wordings for Commercial Vehicle". The Ld. DCDRC has failed to appreciate the 3rd party claim is guided by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereas Own Damage Claim guided by Motor Traffic Act which is guided by some policy condition laid down under the policy in question. The TP Insurance for an owner is compulsory whereas the OD Insurance for an owner is optional. The predecessor of the Appellants has given a consent letter in terms of authorization letter dated 08.04.2015 supported by an affidavit prior to the accident which took place on 04.06.2015. She has further submitted that the Respondent not challenged and/or proved that at the time of accident the driver of the involved vehicle was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs which is one of main criteria of the terms and conditions in stating the own damaged claim laid down in Section 1(2)(b) under the "Policy Wordings for Commercial Vehicle"
issued by the Insurer. As per Section 1(2) the Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The reason for repudiation on the point of incorrect driving licence has not led in the policy terms and conditions to settle the own damage claim. Hence, she has prayed for allowing the appeal with the prayer mentioned in the original petition of complaint by setting aside the impugned Order passed by the Ld. DCDRC concerned.
At the time of final hearing Ld. Counsel for the OP/Respondent has submitted that there is no denial that the accident was occurred on 04.06.2015 and the vehicle sustained severe damage. After accident the vehicle was placed on garage for necessary repairing. However, the same has not been repaired till date. The claim has been repudiated on the ground of possession of one fake driving license by the driver at the time of alleged accident of the said vehicle though the driver was possessing another driving license but the possession of second driving license is barred by law and, therefore, due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance as well as Law of the land. The insurance company has no liability to satisfy the claim of the Appellants.
Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/OP has further argued that the predecessor of the Appellants filed one license in the name of the driver who died at the spot of the accident but when the vehicle made with the accident the driver was carrying the driving license which was not his driving license but the driving license of a third party. The MVI Inspector Naogaon mentioned the number of the Driving License which was not the driving license of the deceased driver. Therefore, it means that at the time of alleged accident the driver was possessing another license.
In support of his argument he has cited the Judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC reported in 2015(2) CPJ 537 and another decision reported in 2015(3) CPJ 227 where it has been specifically held that if driver possesses two driving license, in that case it is nothing but violation of Section 6 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
The LD. Counsel for the respondent / OP / Insurance Company has further submitted that initially the deceased Appellant demanded the expense of repairing to be Rs.12,50,000/- though the Appellant No.1/Complainant have failed to produce any such documents towards repairing of the said vehicle after the alleged accident. Following the statutory provision of the Law of the land B.N. Saikia was appointed as licensed independent surveyor, who was an expert over the subject, accessed the net liability of the respondent / OP to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/- provided all the documents were in order. Therefore, in absence of any contrary evidence, following decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2000 (10) SCC 19 the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount more than the loss accessed by the licensed independent surveyor however since the driving license of the concerned driver was not valid on the date of accident there is no question of any liability of the insurance company. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent /OPS/ insurance company and hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record it is admitted fact that the deceased Complainant was the owner of a vehicle bearing no.WB-03C-6892. It is also admitted fact that the predecessor of the present Appellants took a comprehensive motor policy from the Respondent vide Policy No. 89560296 valid for the period from 15.10.2014 to 24.10.2015. It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle met with an accident on 04.06.2015 at about 6:25 P.M. on National Highway 37 near Mohinifiring under the P.S Bagori. The predecessor of the Appellants lodged the claim due to damaged vehicle. The Respondent/Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Appellants on the ground of incorrect driving silence. Now the question is whether the deceased driver was possessing the correct license or not. On perusal of all the materials on record it is revealed that the Complainant initially submitted a driving license bearing no. 1972/07 which had been issued from Murshidabad silence issuing the office. When the Respondent insurance company verified the same it was found that the said driving licence was issued in favour of another person namely Debasish Mishra. This very licence was possessed by the deceased at the time of alleged accident which was also established by the MVI Inspector report. It is also proved from the FIR itself that the deceased driver possessed fake driving licence which is nothing but violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance as well as clear violation of Section 6 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which is specifically prevented a person from possessing more than one licence. It is true that the predecessor of the Appellants subsequently filed one genuine driving licence of the driver but at the time of alleged accident it was not in the possession of the deceased driver.
It is true that the deceased driver of the vehicle in question was not carrying his Driving License. But, later, the owner of the vehicle in question furnished the original driving license of the deceased driver. The original driving license, later furnished by the complainant i.e. the owner of the vehicle was not disputed by the OP. The Only ground for repudiation is carrying fake driving license carried by the deceased driver which is in violation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the instant case, the unfortunate deceased driver had his own driving license but unfortunately he was carrying the driving license of another person.
In this connection we can cite the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited where the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Insurance Company can grant the claim on non-standard basis where the vehicle carrying the passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence and met with an accident. In the instant case also only on the ground of carrying fake licence by the deceased driver was the ground for repudiation. In the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) the State Commission allowed 75% of the claim of the Claimant on non-standard basis. In the instant case also the OP/Respondent / insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. We are of considered view that the insurance company will settle the claim by paying Rs.9,50,000/- on non-standard basis.
In the facts and circumstances of this case the Respondent/OP/Insurance Company is directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.9,50,000/- as compensation on non-standard basis where the vehicle was totally damaged. The prayer made in the petition of complaint for repairing of the vehicle along with consequential relief towards interest compensation and cost cannot be entertained at all.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Ld. DCDRC Kolkata Unit-II in CC/529/2015 is hereby set aside.
The appeal is allowed in part on contest.
The Respondent OP / Insurance company is hereby directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.9,50,000/-(Rupees Nine lakh and Fifty thousand) only as compensation on non-standard basis without any interest within a period of six weeks from this date. However, if the insurance company delays the aforesaid payment beyond six weeks, then this amount shall carry an interest of 7% per annum from the date of the expiry of the period of six weeks till the date of actual payment.
The instant appeal being No. A 411 of 2016 is thus disposed of accordingly.
Let a copy of this Order be supplied to the parties, free of costs, as per Regulations.
Office is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata Unit--II (Central).
..................
AJEYA MATILAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................
SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA MEMBER