Debasis Bhattacharya, Member:
This appeal is directed against the Order dated 08.07.2011 in Case No. 109/2010, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Nadia. By the impugned Order, the Ld. District Forum has decreed the case on contest against the OPs, entitling the Complainant to get Rs.3,83,495/- (Rupees four lakh eightythree thousand four hindered ninetyfive) from the OP Nos. 1 and 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 thereof have preferred this appeal.
The case of the Complainant, in a nutshell, is that he purchased one Matador Swaraj Mazda at Rs.6,34,272/-, which was financed by OP No.3 and the vehicle was registered vide No. WB-37B/6172. He insured the vehicle with the OP No.1 being Policy No. OG-09-9995-1803-00183416 at I.D.V. of Rs.6,02,500/- (Rupees six lakh two thousand five hundred) for the period from 31.03.2009 to 30.03.2010. The said vehicle met with an accident on 04/05.12.2009 at 12.30A.M., which was registered as F.I.R. No.604/09 dated 05.12.2009, u/s 279/338/304A/427, I.P.C. He made an insurance claim to the Insurance Company being claim no. OC-10-2401-1803-00001223. The vehicle was placed to the workshop of Chatterjee Industries, Krishnanagar, who submitted a list of damaged spare parts and estimate of larbour charge. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor for assessment of loss/damage of the vehicle, who assessed the damaged parts as per assessment of said Chatterjee Industries. It is clear that the front portion of vehicle is totally damaged and the total price of the damaged parts is Rs.3,44,895/- (Rupees three lakhs fortyfour thousand eight hundred ninetyfive) and labour charge is Rs.32,600/- (Rupees thirtytwo thousand six hundred), in total Rs.3,77,495/- (Rupees three lakhs seventysenve thousand four hundred ninetyfive). The Insurance Company has a sent a letter on 27.01.2010 repudiating the claim on the ground that the Driver, who was driving the vehicle at the material point of time of accident, was not holding a valid driving licence. At the time of appointment, the Driver showed a driving license to the Complainant and the same was very much difficult to recognize whether the license is original or duplicate. Accordingly, the case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 is that the Complainant had submitted one claim form and on that basis I.R.D.A. accredited Independent Surveyor was appointed by the OPs and the Surveyor found the vehicle at the workshop, known as âChatterjee Industriesâ, Krishnanagar. Thus, by moving the vehicle from the place of accident beforehand, the Insurance Company has been denied the right to conduct a sport survey in order to ascertain the veracity of the claim. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,44,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fortyfour thousand), however, subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy. The OPs have rightly repudiated the illegal claim of the Complainant on 27.01.2010 on the point that the Driver, who was driving the vehicle at the material point of time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
It is to be seen if the impugned judgment and order suffers from any kind of infirmity so as to interfere with it in the appeal, or not.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that there has been discrepancy in the driving licence of the Driver of the insured motor vehicle, and there has been a notice dated 27.01.201 to the Respondent in this regard, but there has been no reply and he came directly to the Ld. District Forum by presenting a complaint case. There has been effort by the Insurance Company to find out the veracity of the driving licence of the Driver and two reports have been gathered, one by Baljeet Kumar dated 07.01.2010 and the other of Mr. Ashib Minz, Advocate dated 17.02.2011, both of which make out that the driving licence particulars did not match with the DL Register of the D.T.O., Ranchi. Regarding the veracity of the driving licence, the position of the Respondent is also not clear and he stated in the petition of complaint that it is very much difficult to recognize a licence which is original one and which one is duplicate because a general person has no capability to verify the valid driving licence at the time of appointment of a driver. Further, the Surveyors Report is an important piece of document and the entire damage has been classified by the Surveyor and he quantified the loss accordingly. He also submitted that though the proceedings before the Consumer Fora is in the nature of summary trial, but taking of evidence has not been done away with, as the mandate in Section 13 (2) (b) (i), C.P. Act goes. As no evidence was given by the parties before the Ld. District Forum, he sought for a remand of the case by setting aside the impugned judgment. He has referred in all, three decisions, first, of the Honble Supreme Court, reported in IV (2009) CPJ 25 (SC), secondly, of the Honble National Commission, reported in I (2011) CPJ 69 (NC) and thirdly, of the Honble National Commission, reported in 2008 (1) CPR 1 (NC).
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that evidence has been given by the Respondent before the Ld. District Forum. He has further made out that the Appellants have relied upon new documents which have not been placed or relied upon by the Appellants before the Ld. District. In fact, no evidence has been led by the Appellants before the Ld. District Forum. The damaged vehicle was sent to the selected workshop of the Insurance Company for repairs. It is the only bread earning vehicle of the Respondent. He has thus supported the impugned judgment.
It is found from the materials on record of the Case No. 109/2010 that the Respondent as Complainant has given his evidence and stated that he purchased the concerned Swaraj Mazda Matador at a cost of Rs.6,34,272/- (Rupees six lkahs thirtyfour thousand two hundred seventytwo), being financed by the OP No.3 and the same was insured with the OP No.2 through the OP No.3, and there has been an accident on 04/05.12.2009 and the Driver of the vehicle died in such accident and other passengers were admitted to the Hospital by the local people and the vehicle was totally damaged. Accordingly, he made a claim for insurance benefit from the OP No.1, being claim no. OC-10-2401-1803-00001223. He placed the vehicle before the Chatterjee Industries, Krishnanagar, and the Insurance Company appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss, who made an assessment of the damage as per assessment of the Chatterjee Industries. As per the same, it is clear that the front portion of the vehicle is totally damaged and the total price of the damaged parts is Rs.3,44,895/- (Rupees three lakhs fortyfour thousand eight hundred ninetyfive) and labour charge is Rs.32,600/- (Rupees thirtytwo thousand six hundred). He failed to pay the instalment to the OP No.3 as the vehicle is lying at the workshop of the Chatterjee Industries in damaged condition. As there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, he prayed for the reliefs as per the complaint case. In answer to the interrogatories of the Insurance Company, he made out that the Driver submitted his original driving licence at the time of appointment and so the question of verification does not arise. He has further said in reply that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim sending a letter and also not submitted any document regarding authenticity of the driving licence. The most astonishing and surprising part is that the Insurance Company, as the OP Nos. 1 and 2, filed a petition before the Ld. District Forum on 10.06.2011, submitting that they would not file any affidavit-in-chief in the case.
It is clearly found that though the Insurance Company has been given opportunity to give evidence in the case, but it did not propose to cite any evidence. There is at all no document proper from the authority concerned regarding non-validity of the driving licence of the Driver of the insured vehicle. In absence of any documentary proof placed by the Insurance Company, no case stands in its favour. The Respondent, however, depended upon some documents before the Ld. District Forum, which were not fully contradicted by the Insurance Company in the cross-examination. Accordingly, there is nothing wrong in the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District forum. The decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants are of no avail in their favour.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence,
Ordered
that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent. The impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.
Let a copy of this judgment, along with the LCR be forwarded to the Ld. District Forum, Nadia, forthwith.