Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

248/2014

S.Thirunavukarasu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co,Ltd., Rep by its Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

C.Prabhakaran

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  12.01.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 12^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.248/2014

 

S.Thirunavukkarasu,

S/o. Surendran,

2B/6, DABC Apartment,

Aishwaryam Phase – II,

Mogappair West,

Nolambu Alapakkam,

Chennai – 95.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

Bajai Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

New No.497 & 498,

Old No.276 & 277,

Isana Kattima Building,

5^th Floor, Poonamallee High Road,

Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 26.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.C.Prabakaran, S.Angamuthu

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M.B.Gopalan Associates,

                                                                    N.Vijayaraghavan,  M.B.Raghavan

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,58,356/- and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is the owner of the Chevrolet Spark LT Car bearing registration No.TN02 – AQ – 0374 and the model of the car is 2010. The car was insured with the opposite party as a package policy for the period between 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014. The complainant had license to drive the two wheeler and the car from the year 1997 onwards. On 07.06.2014 while he was driving the vehicle from Chennai to Salem, while  nearing Pukkulam Bridge in the Thiyagadurgam Bypass Road, the front left side tyre got busted and he lost  the control of the car and capsized and resulting he and his wife sustained injuries. Thereafter they took treatment at Government Hospital, Kallakurichi and then in a private hospital at Salem.

          2. The repairer gave a quotation for Rs.2,18,396/- and the same was intimated to the opposite party. The complainant had failed to renew the license which was expired on 27.04.2014 and however he renewed the same on 23.07.2014. At the time of accident the insurance was in force and hence the opposite party bound to indemnify the complainant claim. However, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant by its communication dated 20.08.2014 on the sole ground that the complainant was not having effective driving license at the time of accident.  The opposite party failed to know that the accident took place due to unexpected sudden burst of tyre. The Thrive Cars/Repairer completed the work and billed for Rs.2,58,356/- The complainant paid the amount and took delivery of the car and thereafter issued legal notice and even after that the opposite party failed to sanction the claim amount. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,58,356/- and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

 3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant’s vehicle TV 02 AQ 0374 was admittedly insured with them under Motor Package Policy No.OG-14-1501-1801-00038312 for the period from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014. The vehicle is insured on the condition that it is driven  by a person holding a valid driving license as stipulated in the Driver’s Clause of the Policy. General Exception 3 of the policy further stipulates that the opposite party shall not be liable for any claim if the vehicle is driven by a person contrary to the driver’s clause. Therefore driving of vehicle by a person who does not hold a valid driving license is a fundamental breach of the policy and this opposite party will have no liability for any claim in such circumstances.

          4. On the date of accident the complainant’s driving license was not in force having expired even on 27.04.2014, more than 40 days earlier and not renewed. It was renewed only on 23.07.2014, more than 1 ½ months after the accident and nearly 3 months after expiry.  The expired driving license is not a valid driving license under Motor Vehicles Act, In view of the above; this opposite party cannot be accused of having committed deficiency in service, when it has only acted as per terms of the policy. Hence this opposite party submits that its decision taken in accordance with the terms of the contract cannot be considered as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of the Chevrolet Spark LT Car bearing registration No.TN02 – AQ – 0374 and the model of the car is 2010 by virtue of Ex.A1 registration certificate and the said  car was duly insured with the opposite party as  a package policy for the period between 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014 and the policy issued by the opposite party is marked as Ex.A2 & B1 and Ex.A3 is the driving license of the complainant and on 07.06.2014   while he was driving the vehicle from Chennai to Salem, while  nearing Pukkulam Bridge in the Thiyagadurgam bypass Road, the front left side tyre got busted and he lost  the control of the car and capsized and resulting he and his wife sustained injuries and thereafter they took treatment at Government Hospital, Kallakurichi and then in a private hospital at Salem and Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 are the discharge summary issued to the complainant and his wife and Ex.A6 is the copy of FIR registered in respect of the accident and thereafter the complainant made claim in Ex.B3 to the opposite party and the same was rejected by the opposite party in Ex.B4 letter dated 22.07.2014 and also second time rejected in Ex.B5 letter dated 20.08.2014.

          7. The opposite party admits that the policy Ex.A2 issued by him was in force on the date of accident. The opposite party rejected the claim only on the ground that the driver was not holding valid driving license on the fateful day.

          8. The complainant would contend that he was issued with license on 11.04.1997 for LMV vehicles and at that time he was only 24 years old and therefore the license issued on the above said day is valid for 20 years and therefore, the license issued to him is valid till 10.04.2017. Ex.A3 is the driving license of the complainant. For transport vehicle the license is valid till 26.04.2014 as per license. His renewed license is marked as Ex.A13. The complainant sought information under the RTI Act in respect of his license and the reply issued by the Information Officer/RTO, Poonamallee that the license issued to him is a non transport LMV license issued on 11.04.1997 and as per section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the license issued to the complainant is valid for a period of 20 years from the date of issue.  Further the license expires on 10.04.2017.The license was issued to the complainant on 11.04.1997 and from that date for a period of 20 years i.e., till 10.04.2017 it is valid. The date of accident is on 07.06.2014. Even after three years from the date of accident the complainant is in possession of valid driving license. Therefore, it is held that the complainant was holding valid driving license on the date of accident.

          9. Since the complainant was holding valid driving license on the date of accident, the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant is deficiency on his part and therefore, it is held that the opposite party committed deficiency in service.

 

 

10. POINT NO:2

          It is held above that the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant is deficiency and in view of that the complainant is entitled for the claim made by him. Now the point is to what extent, the complainant is entitled from the claim amount made by him. The complainant stated in the complaint that he had billed for a sum of Rs.2,58,356/- for repairing his car and to support to the same and to support the said amount he filed Ex.A11 final bill issued by Thrive Cars, Salem. The Ex.A11 bill is a computer statement. Nowhere in the said bill neither the repairs signed or affixed his seal.  The complainant has not filed the copy of the claim form to know the claim amount. However, the opposite party filed the claim form as Ex.B3 and in the said form the claim amount has not been filled. Therefore, in such circumstances the entire money cannot be awarded as claim amount. However, the opposite party filed his surveyor report as Ex.B2 in respect of the damage caused to the complainant vehicle. He had arrived a sum of Rs.1,71,900/- could be the repair charges. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,71,900/- towards the claim of the complainant with 9% interest from the date of the surveyor report on 05.09.2014 to till the date of this order. The complainant has not placed the Ex.A14 reply under the RTI Act before the opposite party for consideration of the claim amount.  Only during the pendency of the case he had obtained Ex.A14 and filed as document.  We have awarded interest for the claim amount from the date of the surveyor report and therefore in such circumstances we are not awarding any compensation for mental agony. However, we inclined to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the other relief is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,71,900/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one thousand nine hundred  only) towards the claim amount with 9% interest  from  05.09.2014  to till the date of this order to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the other relief is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th day of January 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 20.12.2010                   Registration Certificate

Ex.A2 dated 20.12.2013                   Insurance Policy

Ex.A3 dated 29.04.2011                   Driving License of complainant

Ex.A4 dated 07.06.2014                   Discharge Summary of complainant

Ex.A5 dated 07.06.2014                   Discharge Summary of Sasikala

Ex.A6 dated 10.06.2014                   F.I.R.No.130/14, Thiyagadurugam P.S.

Ex.A7 dated 11.06.2014                   M.V.Report, Kallakurichi M.V.Inspector

Ex.A8 dated 08.07.2014                   Quotation issued by Thriive Cars, Salem

Ex.A9 dated 23.07.2014                   Renewed Driving License of complainant

Ex.A10 dated 20.08.2014                 Repudiation of Claim by O.P

Ex.A11 dated 30.08.2014                 Final Bill by Thriive Cars, Salem

Ex.A12 dated 17.10.2014                 Legal Notice by complainant’s counsel with

                                                    A/D Card

 

Ex.A13 dated 22.06.2017                 Presently renewed driving license of complainant

 

Ex.A14 dated 22.07.2017                 Information furnished by R.T.O., Poonamallee

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Insurance Policy with terms and conditions

 

Ex.B2 dated 05.09.2014                   Survey Report

 

Ex.B3 dated 24.06.2014                   Claim Form

 

Ex.B4 dated 22.07.2014                   Repudiation Letter

 

Ex.B5 dated 20.08.2014                   Repudiation Letter        

                  

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT