District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present          

Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee              - President

Miss. Swapna Saha                            - Member

Shri Siddhartha Ganguli                      - Member

Consumer Complaint No. 28/2015

Uttam Kumar Pandey

S/o Late Mukti Ranjan Pandey

Vill.: Salash,

PO: &  P.S.: Tapan,

Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur                      …………………Complainant(s)

V-E-R-S-U-S

      The Manager,

      National Insurance Company Ltd.

      Balurghat Branch,

      Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.                …………………Opposite Party

Ld. Advocate(s):

For complainant          ………………  - Shri Prosun Choudhury

For OP                                    ………………  - Shri Nirmal Agarwal

Date of Filing                                       : 24.04.2015

Date of Disposal                                 : 23.11.2015

                                                                                                Contd…P/2

Judgment & Order  dt. 23.11.2015

            It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased one TATA SUMO Grand GX Décor BSN car, which was insured with National Insurance Company (NIC) on 30.4.2013, while the complainant was going to Durgapur from Balurghat in the said vehicle bearing No.WB-62/C-1168 met with an accident at Elam Bazar within Birbhum district, resulting in heavy damage to the said vehicle. The said fact was intimated to the OP and as per instruction of the OP vehicle was sent to a garage for repairing. The complainant had to spend Rs.5,08,000/- and accordingly a claim  was made against the Insurance Company which was repudiated. Having no other alternative the complainant has filed this case praying for realization of the said amount of Rs.5,08,000/- plus other costs.

OP contested the case by filing a written version whereby the OP admitted the accident and also it was stated that the complainant is a policyholder and the policy was valid at the relevant point of time. It was also mentioned in the written version that after the accident a survey was made through their surveyor and the surveyor assessed the damaged of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,47,000/- for settlement. It was further stated that in the proposal form of the complainant the name of the driver was mentioned as Ganesh Kumar Sikdar being his DL No. WB61/7589 which was issued by R.T.A., Dakshin Dinajpur. While the verification was made by the Insurance Company in respect of the said DL from the said office it was found that the particular contents the name of the holder of the licence as Muktadul Haque in stead of Ganesh Kumar Sikdar. Accordingly, it was stated that Ganesh Kumar Sikdar had no DL and if he had any licence the same was fake and false one. Since at the time of settlement of the claim the Insurance Company found the DL was found fake and false one, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant for violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. It is duty of the insured to verify

                                                                                                Contd…P/3

the DL from R.T.A. before engaging any one as a driver. Since the complainant failed to take proper care and step regarding the said driver and therefore it can be presumed that the complainant willfully violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.

On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-

1. Whether the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and met with an accident for which the complainant incurred the expenses of Rs.5,08,000/-?
2. Whether the DL of the insured vehicle was fake and false one ?

3. Whether the driver was running the vehicle with a proper DL?
4. Whether the complainant fulfilled the terms and conditions of the insurance?
5. Whether the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant illegally?
6. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

            All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of the fact.

            It is admitted fact that the complainant is the owner in respect of the vehicle being registration No.WB-62/C-1168 and it is also admitted fact that the said vehicle was met with an accident. The OP admitted in the written version that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company at the relevant point of time. From the materials on record it is crystal clear that after the accident the vehicle was sent to the garage for repairing and though the complainant claimed that he had to bear the expenses of Rs.5,08,000/-. But the OP through their surveyor assessed the damage and who opined that the vehicle suffered damage to the tune of Rs. 3,47,000/-. The OP while considering the claim of the complainant tried to verify the DL of the driver of the said vehicle from the RTO and found that the driver of the said vehicle of Ganesh Kumar Sikdar being the driving licence No. WB

                                                                                                Contd…P/4

61/7589 issued by the RTA, Dakshin Dinajpur was in the name of another person namely Muktadul Haque and not Ganesh Kumar Sikdar who was driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant, since the complainant failed to produce proper DL stood in the name of the Ganesh Kumar Sikdar. Since the complainant failed to take proper care and in order to fulfill the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the OP did not commit any illegality in refusing and to entertain the claim of the complainant.

            In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that since the complainant himself was guilty for the violation of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, we hold that the complainant himself suffered for his own fault for which the OP cannot be held liable and repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was justified one, as such we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

             Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

            that the instant petition of complaint being CC No.28/2015 is dismissed on contest without any costs.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

            Dictated & corrected

            …………….…….                                                       

            (S. N. Chatterjee)                                                       

                President                                                                

            We concur,

            ………...……                                                  ………….……..

              (S. Saha)                                                            (S. Ganguli) 

               Member                                                                Member

1. Date when free copy was issued                         ……………………
2. Date of application for certified copy       ……………………
3. Date when copy was made ready            ……………………
4. Date of delivery                                        ……………………

FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]

1. Mode of dispatch                                ……………………
2. Date of dispatch                                  ……………………

-x-