BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Suresh Kumar son of Ram Rakha r/o 987, Housing Board Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 329, Sector 9, Panchkula.

2]      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 139-40, Sector 8-C, Ist Floor, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant.

                        Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OPs.                     

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant got his vehicle (Polo) insured with OPs bearing registration No.CH01AD8657. The insurance policy was valid from 20.9.2010 to 19.9.2011.         

                    It is case of the complainant that unfortunately on 22.1.2011, the said vehicle met with an accident, while coming back from Village Dihara, District Una (H.P.) to Chandigarh. At the time of accident, the son of the complainant was driving the vehicle. In the said accident, the vehicle got totally damaged.

                    It is further case of the complainant that the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 8.6.2011 on the ground that Mr.Sushil Kumar son of the complainant, was holding a learner driving licence. Hence, this complaint. 

2.                The OPs in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that as per the Motor Insurance Claim Form dated 8.4.2011 submitted by the complainant, the date of birth of the driver was mentioned as 7.2.1983 and he was holding a license issued for ‘Learner’ w.e.f. 15.10.2010 to 14.9.2011. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy (driver’s clause) and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The perusal of the photographs of the damaged vehicle would show that the complainant has also violated Rule 3(c) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules as the photographs would clearly establish that letter “L” has not been affixed on the rear and the front of the vehicle. Hence the claim has been rightly repudiated after due application of mind. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The OPs addressed a communication Annexure  C-3 dated 30.4.2011, stating therein, that the driver Mr.Susheel son of Sh.Suresh Dhiman was holding a Learner’s Licence and was traveling alone at the material time of accident. It has been further stated that in view of the above, it be replied as to why the claim should not be repudiated.

6.                Now the point for consideration is whether on the date of accident, the driver of the ill-fated vehicle was having and possessing a valid driving licence. The answer to this is in the affirmative.

7.                Annexure C-4 is a copy of the driving licence of Mr.Susheel son of Sh.Suresh Dhiman, valid from 14.12.2001 to 13.12.2021 to drive LMV. Thus, it is held that on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle Mr.Susheel son of Sh.Suresh Dhiman was holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident, which took place on 22.1.2011, as the licence is valid from 14.12.2001 to 13.12.2021. Thus, it is held that the Ops have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant.

8.                Annexure C-2 is the copy of the Certificate-cum- Policy Schedule and its perusal makes it clear that the vehicle bearing No. CH01AD8657 was insured from 20.9.2010 to 19.9.2011 with the OPs for Rs.5,53,375/-. Annexure R-2 is the Survey Report placed on record by the Ops, qua which, the surveyor has assessed the loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs.6,88,000/- and on net loss basis Rs.5,53,375/- less salvage value of Rs.1,27,000/-, less compulsory deductible to Rs.500/- and the net liability on net loss basis is Rs.4,25,375/-.

9.                As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to pay Rs. 5,53,375/- to the complainant (Insured Declared Value of the car) subject to return of salvage of Rs.1,27,000/- as assessed by the surveyor. It is made clear that in case it is not possible for the complainant to return the salvage, then OPs shall be liable to pay net assessed loss of Rs.4,25,375/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.7.2011 till its payment. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.  This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the awarded amount along with penal interest @ 15% p.a. besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

10.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.