BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

     17^TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,   MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant in person under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against OP to pay Rs.10,316/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost on the allegations of deficiency of service. 

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

Complainant Purchased ACTIVA 3G two wheeler on 17.06.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.60.694/-.  The tax invoice issued by City Honda (CXTN) is produced.  The said vehicle was insured with OP vide policy No. 161701 1802000 14999.  The policy is valid for the period 17.06.2015 to 16.06.2016.  The said vehicle met with an accident and vehicle fully damaged.  Complainant made the claim on 28.07.2015 before the Insurance Company along with relevant documents.  OP informed the complainant that he is not eligible for insurance claim because he is holding learning licence.  Though complainant informed OP that at the time of accident his brother was riding the said vehicle.  OP is not believing the statement of the complainant as he told different thing on telephone conversation.  Complainant was in tension hearing the news of the accident.  Complainant sent email dated 28.07.2015 requesting OP to settle the claim of the complainant.  There was no response from OP.  Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Under the circumstances, he is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

3.  In response to the notice issued, OP appeared through their advocate and sought time for filing version.  However, despite sufficient time and opportunity given, OP failed to file the version and contest the case.  Hence, version taken as not filed and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.

4. So as to prove his case, Mr.Abrar Khan, who being the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence in support of his complaint reiterating the complaint averments and also filed written arguments.

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. OP neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6. In support of his complaint complainant has produced the following documents.  Document No.1 is copy of the receipt dated 07.08.2015 issued by City Honda (CXTN) for having paid Rs.10,316/- towards repair and spare parts of the vehicle. Document No.2 and 3 are copies of the invoice No. 1AIW002327 dated 07.08.2015 issued by City Honda (CXTN) to the complainant showing list of spare parts, painting and labour charges in total for a sum of Rs.10,316/-.  Document No.4 is copy of the life time road tax paid receipt issued by Transport Department to the complainant.  Document No.5 is copy of the Tax Invoice No.19IN1500709 dated 17.06.2015 for Rs.60,694/- issued by City Honda (FRTN) for having purchased the Activa 3G SCV 110F by the complainant.  Document No.6 is copy of the insurance package policy schedule of the vehicle issued by OP on 17.06.2015 which is valid from 17.06.2015 to 16.06.2016 and it shows ID value of the vehicle as Rs.49,498/-. Document No.7 is copy of the email dated 28.07.2015 sent by complainant to OP customer care stating surveyor Mr.Yogaswamy submitted all the relevant documents but he was replied stating complainant is not eligible to claim reimbursement as he is holding learner licence but in the policy bond it is mentioned that holder of learner licence is also eligible to claim insurance otherwise OP should not have issued the policy, if his claim is not approved he will approach Consumer Forum for justice. 

7.  On perusal of oral and documentary evidence it is crystal clear that complainant is the owner of the vehicle Activa 3G two wheeler as per Document No.5, tax invoice dated 17.06.2015.  The said vehicle is insured with the OP vide policy No.OG-16-1701-1802-00014669.  The Insurance is valid from 17.06.2015 to 16.06.2016 as per document No.6, two wheeler package policy.  Now the grievance of the complainant is that the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident.  Complainant made the claim with OP as per document No.7, email sent to OP.  OP has denied his claim on the ground that complainant was holding learner’s licence at the time of accident.  Hence this complaint.

8. On perusal of available materials on record, it is crystal clear that the vehicle owned by the complainant is insured with OP and the insurance is valid as on the date of accident.  The complainant has incurred expenses to the extent of Rs.10,316/- towards repairs of his vehicle as per document No.1 the bill issued by City Honda.  As per the terms mentioned in package policy in document No.6 which states “Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods/passengers at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989”.  Thus, under the policy terms person holding learner’s licence is also eligible to drive the vehicle subject to the condition that he satisfies Rule-3 of the said act.  The complainant has sworn to the fact that his brother having permanent licence was riding the said vehicle at the time of the accident and accordingly complainant made the claim with OP.  The denial of the legitimate claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  We are satisfied that the complainant proved deficiency in service against OP.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP is liable to reimburse the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.10,316/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. 

2. OP is directed to reimburse the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.10,316/-.

3. Further OP shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

4. The OP shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5.  Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the  17^th day of March 2016)

MEMBER                          MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

NRS* 

COMPLAINT NO.1557/2015

      Witness examined on behalf of the complainant dated 12.01.2016 Sri.Abrar Khan

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP – Absent

List of documents produced by the OP– Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                         PRESIDENT