Hon’ble Sri Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant is present.

Today is fixed for ex parte hearing of the appeal.

The matter is running ex parte against the Respondent.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Unit—II, Kolkata allowing the complaint case being no. 98/2018 directing the OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 10,02,954/- to the Complainant company within 30 days along with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-, the OP/Appellant preferred this appeal.

The fact of the case in short like that the Complainant company obtained an insurance policy for an yearly premium of Rs. 37,720 being policy no. 3379/01352861/000/00 with the validity from 15.02.2026 to midnight of 14.02.2017 in respect of the Vehicle No. WB-11C-9362 having Engine No. E613CDGA063693. Chassis No. MC2K1MRC0GA046593, make-Eicher, Model-20.16. On 18.09.2016 the said vehicle met with an accident within the Golakganj P.S., Dhubri Assam and a case was registered against the Driver of the said vehicle with the Golakganj P.S vide Case no. 768/16 dated 26.09.2016. A report was prepared by the District Transport Officer, Dhubri against the driver of the Said vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The said vehicle was repaired at Allied Motorwheels Siliguri Pvt. Ltd. at Siliguri. They raised a bill for Rs. 10,02,954/-. Accordingly, the Complainant company submitted their claim vide Claim No. 3379181943. The driver’s name was mentioned as Satendra Ray, S/O of Ram Sogarth Ray instead of Mukesh Yadav. On 21.06.2017 the Complainant company submitted their claim before the OP again by correcting the name of the Driver of the vehicle and made apology for the said clerical mistake along with all relevant details with the request to release their claim. But on 17.07.2017, the OP rejected the claim on the ground that it was mentioned in the claim form that said Mukesh Yadav was driving the vehicle at the time of accident though the complainant company submitted the report of the D.T.O. of Dhubri, Assam wherein it was clearly mentioned that Mukesh Yadav was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident. It was alleged in spite of submission of all required documents the OP did not pay any heed to release the legitimate claim of the Complainant Company. Hence, the Complainant Company filed this case before the Forum below.

The OP Insurance Company at the District contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia, that the instant consumer complaint case is not maintainable in its present form and in law. They said the allegations which have been made in the petition of complaint are false and harrassive. The Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the C.P. Act, 1986. The Case of the OP is that they issued one Policy bearing NO. 3379/01352861000 valid from 15.02.2016 to 14.02.2017 in respect of Vehicle no. WB-11C-9362. The complainant lodged  their claim regarding repairing cost of the damaged vehicle after 02.03.2017. Violating the policy condition no. 1, the Complainant submitted their claim after an inordinate delay though in the said condition no. 1 it has been clearly mentioned that a notice should be given immediately after the accident. The OP/Insurance Company at the District  further submits that the Complainant submitted the name of the driver as Satendra Ray coupled with driving licence no. and Adhaar Card and on verification the licence was found fake. Being intimated the complainant company substituted the driver’s detail of Mukesh Yadav stating that they furnished wrong information in regard to the driver’s details and actually the name of the accused driver is Mukesh Yadav instead of Satendra Ray. OP/Insurance Company has also stated that when the insured realised that their claim cannot be settled, they furnished the purported letter dated 21.06.2017 and changed the driver’s name. The OP/Insurance Company  has further stated that they had repudiated the claim rightly and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

The Ld. Commission below framed following points for determination:-

i) Whether the OP is deficient in rendering proper service.

ii) Whether the OP indulged unfair trade practice.

iii) Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief?

Considering the evidence and the related documents the Ld. Commission below answered all these points in affirmative.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the correspondences between the parties at page no. 32 of the memo of appeal. It would reveal from the letter dated 29.05.2017 that “we employed the driver Satendra Ray, S/O  Ram Sogarath Ray after taking proper test before appointing him as a driver of the aforesaid vehicle. We as a laymen carefully gone through the driving licencee having proper seal over it and we being not an expert could not trace out the genuinity as up till now, no application or devices has been provided for taking verification and genuinity of any driver’s licence.

In our opinion the same licence was issued by DTO UKHRUL district of MANIPUR who has also issued NOC confirming the same and as such we are of the view that the licence was genuine.”

Subsequently, our attention was drawn to the subsequent letter dated 21.06.2017 issued by New City Carrier Pvt. Ltd. being the Respondent herein. It reveals from the document that they were in hurry so the wrong name of the driver was given.

It is also pointed out that the accident took place on 18.09.2016 but the matter was informed to the Insurance Company on 02.03.2017 after a delay of 5½ months.

Perused the impugned judgment along with the other materials on record.

Heard the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.

It is apparent that the name of the Driver Satendra Ray coupled with driving licence along with Aadhaar Card on verification was found fake, from the page no. 77 of the appeal.

Although the name of another Driver and Aadhaar card was furnished by the party concerned. Ld Counsel for the appellant stated it was an afterthought.

Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and materials on record we find that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D

The appeal is allowed.

Impugned judgment is set aside.

Order of interim stay, if there is any, stands vacated.

There shall be no order as to costs.