KAIMUDDIN KHAJA S/O HABIBULLA KHAJA Vs. MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE ANIL DHIRUBHAI AMBANI GROUP RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/complainant is the owner of a lorry bearing registration No.WB -57A -1092 which was insured with the opposite party -Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.. Alleging that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 05 -01 -2008 near Village -Siduria on NH -2, P.S. -Barun, Aurangabad, Bihar, the petitioner/complainant reported the accident to Police Station -Barun on 07 -01 -2008. The insurance company was informed and the surveyor inspected the vehicle assessing the damage at Rs.70,684/ -. The vehicle is alleged to have been repaired at D & K Auto Body at a cost of Rs.2,50,000/ -, including the cost of motor parts. However, the insurance company rejected the claim of the petitioner/complainant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his claim the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit I, Kolkata (for short, the District Forum).

(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the insurance company which inter alia contended that since the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence, there was a clear cut violation of the policy condition by the insured and, therefore, they had rightly repudiated the claim.

(3.) THE District Forum vide its order dated 31 -08 -2012 allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ - to the complainant on account of damage to the vehicle, Rs.7,000/ - towards compensation for harassment and Rs.5,000/ - towards cost of litigation. Interest at the rate of 9% p.a. was also awarded to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short, the State Commission). Vide impugned order dated 16 -01 -2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and the complainant had otherwise not substantiated his claim by producing convincing evidence such as invoices of the purchase of motor parts. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.