The complainant Jagarnath Paswan  has filed this complaint petition against Branch Manager, Oriental  insurance company Ltd.   and two other o.ps for  the realization of Rs. 2,00,000/-  as  sum assured amount with  18 % interest, Rs. 50,000/- as  economical,  mental and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, total of Rs. 2,52,000/-.   

The brief, facts of the case is that on 06-01-2000 vehicle of the complainant Maruti Van Bearing No.- BR061259 met with an accident on Muzaffarpur Patna  road near Gorual  P.S. for which he lodged an FIR in Goarul  P.S.  and informed o.p no1. The further case is that the complainant had insured his vehicle with o.p no.1 on 09-06-2K. The further case is that o.p no.1 &2 didn’t indemnify the claim of the petitioner for the loss of the vehicle

O.P  No.1 & 2 appeared on issuance of summon and filed his w.s. on 17-08-2001 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition with cost. O.P. No.1 & 2 has admitted  this fact in his w.s that vehicle in question BR-061269 is insured with the insurance company. He has also admitted that the complainant gave an information to the o.p regarding the accident of the aforesaid vehicle. He has also annexed the letter of complainant  regarding information of the accident of the vehicle as annexure-1 which will be treated as  annexure-A for easy reference. It has been further mentioned that on the aforesaid information Sri Arun Kumar surveyor  was  appointed to assess the loss who submitted  his survey report. It has been admitted  in w.s. that the complainant (applicant)  filed  the claim before o.p company in which he mentioned the no. of Driving License as 937/1990 issued by D.T.O Muzaffapur. It has been further mentioned that on investigation of the D.L., it was found that the claimant was only permitted to drive the motorcycle. He has annexed photocopy of D.T.O report as annexure-2 which will be treated as annexure-B. It has been further mentioned that after repairing of the vehicle complainant submitted his bill for Rs. 1,11,582.42/-. Photocopy of the same has been annexed as annexure-3 (annexure-c). It has been further mentioned that the complainant did not give any report of the D.T.O Muzaffarpur. The claim of the complainant was repudiated as no claim. Photocopy of the repudiation letter has been annexed as annexuxre-4 (annexure - D).

D.T.O Muzaffarpur has also been made party as o.p no.3 who has submitted his w.s.  vide letter no.- 286 dated 04-03-2005. It has been mentioned in the above letter that as per record of his office Sri Jagarnath Paswan bearing  D.L. No.- 937/1990 was only allowed to drive motorcycle and his D.L. was issued on 17-09-1990. It has been further mentioned that on 26-05-2000 he was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and the same was renewed since 04-01-2009.

O.P has repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that on the date of accident, complainant is not authorized to drive L.M.V. rather he was authorized to drive motor cycle only.  

O.P. has annexed photocopy of particular of D.L. No. 937/1990 as annexure-2 (B) which shows that the complainant was only authorized to Drive motor cycle. O.p no.3 D.T.O  Muzaffarpur has also filed a w.s. in the form of letter bearing no. 286 dated 04-03-2005 in which he has stated that the complainant  Jagarnath Paswan bearing D.L. No. 937/1990, which was issued on 17-09-1990, was only authorized to Drive motor cycle . He has further mentioned that on 26-05-2000, he was authorized to drive L.M.V. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 06-01-2000 and on that very date complainant was only authorized to drive motor cycle only. He was not authorized to drive L.M.V. On behalf of complainant.  No evidence has been adduced on behalf of complainant on the point that on date of accident that is on 06-01-2000, he was authorized to drive L.M.V. On behalf of complainant only challan of 20-04-1990 has been filed to show the renewal of the license. So, it also does not go to prove that on date of accident he was authorized to drive L.M.V. On the basis of above discussion, it is crystal clear that the complainant was not authorized to drive L.M.V. on 06-01-2000 and he was driving the Maruti Van without any valid D.L. In the circumstances company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

Accordingly we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on part of o.ps and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances the complaint petition is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.