CIMA ROAD LINES vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant''s case is as follows :

THE complainant M/s. Cima Road Lines had insured its Trailer Tractor No. AS-01/D 5716 with the Howarah Divisional Office of the opposite party the Indian National Insurance Co. Ltd. on payment of a consideration of Rs. 22,500/- and got a comprehensive policy of insurance, valid for the period from 5.12.1994 to 4.12.1995. During the currency of the insurance the vehicle on its way to Dhulyajan caught fire on 16.11.1995 and was completely gutted. THE accident was intimated to the Insurance Company by a letter dated 16.11.1995. THE opposite party appointed a Surveyor named Bibhuti Das to survey and assess the loss on the 6th February, 1996. THE said Surveyor after necessary investigation confirmed the accident and offered a sum of Rs. 5,18,810/- in settlement of the claim on "cash loss", although according to the complainant the vehicle was completely gutted. THE complainant agreed to accept the sum as it appeared to them that the opposite party was inclined to take a procrastinated decision in the matter. THE complainant also complied with all the requirements of the Surveyor and the opposite party. THE opposite party however, did not take any further action on the offer of the Surveyor and at last by a letter dated 16.12.1996 repudiated the claim on a flimsy ground that the driver of the vehicle possessed a licence which was non- effective and non-operative. THE complainant being aggrieved by this decision of the Insurance Company has filed this case claiming the agreed amount earlier offered with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. The opposite party contests the case, its only point of contest being that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence when the accident took place. It has stated in its written objection that the driver Shri Gurmit Singh was holding a driving licence No.507 of 1981 issued by the Licensing Authority, Ganjam, Orissa. It was, however, found on investigation that the said licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Ganjam in renewal of the initial licence No. 5816/78 issued by the Licensing Authority, Kamrup, Assam. On enquiry from Kamrup it has been learned that no such licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Kamrup. Hence it has been stated that the original licence being a fake one, the subsequent renewal of the same did not create a valid licence.

The points for determination are- (i) If the driver of the affected vehicle Gurmit Singh had any valid licence when the vehicle met with the accident. (ii) If the repudiation of the claim on the ground of the absence of a valid licence as alleged by the opposite party constituted any deficiency in service, and (iii) What relief, if any, the complainant is entitled to. Finding with reason

BOTH parties have produced documents in support of their respective claims. The Insurance Company has produced a letter dated 6.5.1996 from one Sagar Investigating Agency. The letter is as follows : "Sagar Investigating Agency Santipur, Guwahati To The Regional Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Bhagagarh, Ghy.-5 Ref. Verification of D/L No. 5816/78 dated 11.4.1978 Sir, In connection of verification of D/L No. 5816/78 dated 11.4.1978 in the name of Shri Gurmit Singh, District Transport Officer, Kamrup (West Zone) Guwahati had been approached. He informed in written that the driving licence No. 5816/78 dated 11.4.1978 in the name of Shri Gurmit Singh was not issued from this office. The original application written to D.T.O., Kamrup (West Zone) Guwahati alongwith his information is enclosed here. Since the D.T.O., Kamrup (East Zone) was established in the year of 1992 and the said D/L was issued in the year 1978, hence authority of this office has not agreed to give any written informations, but verbally said that the said D /L was not issued from that office. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Bankim Das"

It would be seen from the above letter that there was no direct communication between the Insurance Company and the office of the Licensing Authority, Kamrup. The investigation was done through an Investigating Agency. The said Agency has not adduced any supporting evidence in this case. Neither has any document been produced from the office of the Licensing Authority. The alleged enclosure to the Agency''s letter has also not been produced.

ON the other hand, the complainant has produced the copy of a certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, Ganjam. It is a certified copy of the document showing the issue of driving licence to Gurmit Singh. From this certificate it appears that valid licence was granted to Gurmit Singh by the Licensing Authority, Guwahati which was valid from 11.4.1978 to 10.4.1981. It further appears from this certificate that this licence was renewed from time to time upto 15.8.1996 (barring a short period from 27.6.1993 to 15.8.1993). This certificate further proves that the driving licence in 1978 was issued from the office of the Licensing Authority, Guwahati. If the office of the Licensing Authority, Kamrup was first opened in 1992, the search for the licence has evidently not been made by the Investigating Agency from the proper office. The Agency ought to have enquired which was the Issuing Authority in 1978. The complainant has produced another relevant and important document. It is a certificate issued by the Transport Department, Andhra Pradesh to Gurmit Singh on the completion of a training course on safe transportation of harzardous and dangerous goods. The training was conducted by the Government Driving School, Visakhapatnam. Such a training is a must under the Commercial Vehicles Policy as incorporated in the insurance policy itself. Now, if there was really no initial driving licence of Gurmit Singh, would he have been allowed to ply commercial vehicles for these long years. When the licence was renewed by the Licensing Authority of Ganjam was he not satisfied that the licence which he was going to renew was actually in existence. Under the law, an intimation is required to be given to the original Licensing Authority when a licence is renewed before another authority. Having considered the evidence adduced before us and the reasonable inferences drawn out of them, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove satisfactorily that the driver Gurmit Singh had a valid driving licence when the accident occurred. Another significant factor should also be taken into account in adjudicating this case of insurance claim. Here the claim has arisen out of the destruction of the vehicle by fire. The driving licence, though relevant, is not that important. The occurrence of fire has been established by the investigation of the Surveyor. It has not been suggested from any quarters that the fire broke out on account of the plying of the car by an unauthorised driver. Hence in our opinion the entire approach to the problem by the Insurance Company has been from a wrong end.

ON the basis of the above analysis of facts we decide the point in favour of the complainant and hold that the driver Gurmit Singh had a valid licence when the accident occurred.

AS regards points Nos. (ii) and (iii), we find that excepting the validity of the driver''s licence no other point of objection has been raised by the opposite party. It has been a loss by fire which has been found to be true. But inspite of the establishment of the genuineness of the complainant''s case the opposite party has not taken any steps to settle the matter. They had appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor has assessed the loss which the complainant was agreeable to accept. Inspite of this fact the Insurance Company has not taken any steps to settle the claim. On the other hand they have repudiated and otherwise valid claim on flimsy grounds. We, therefore, find them guilty of deficiency in service. As regards the amount of insurance claim, the Surveyor has already assessed the same. The opposite party has adduced no evidence whatsoever that the assessment is unjust or perverse. The amount assessed by the Surveyor appears to us reasonable. The complainant is also willing to accept it. We, therefore, hold that the complainant shall be entitled to get an amount of Rs. 5,18,810/- (Rupees five lakhs eighteen thousand eight hundred and ten only). They will also be entitled to an interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid sum with effect from June, 1996 until payment.

This petition of complainant is accordingly allowed. The complainant to realise from the opposite party amount of Rs. 5,18,810/- (Rupees five lakhs eighteen thousand eight hundred and ten only) with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from June, 1996 until payment. The entire decretal dues must be paid within one month from the date of communication. Complaint allowed.