Haryana

Panchkula

CC/514/2019

SUBEDAR SANJAY KUMAR MAHAPATRA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BERKELAY AUTO LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV MALHOTRA

25 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	514 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	11.09.2019
Date of Decision	:	25.01.2022

 

Subedar  Sanjay Kumar Mahapatra  aged 49 years son of Late Shri Hrushikesh Mahapatra, resident of House No.3951, Sector-F, Chandimandir Cantt now posted at Unit 66 Coy, ASC Sup Type ‘B’ located at Babina, District Jhansi(UP)

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Berkeley Auto Limited through its Managing Director, Plot No.68 Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula.

2.     Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, SCO No.350-351-352, First Floor, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for the    complainant.

                        OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 05.11.2019.

                        Sh. Rampal Kohle, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant has purchased a Hyundai i20 Sports in Jan, 2019, bearing registration no.HR-03-X-7237 from OP No.1 under CSD quota. On the allurement of the OP No.1, the complainant insured the vehicle from the OP No.2 for a period of three years which is commencing from 01.04.2019 to 03.02.2022 and paid Rs.27,135/- as premium the Ops and the said car/vehicle insured with Ops under bumper to bumper policy and in case of any loss/damaged to the said car, the Ops were liable to indemnify the loss caused to car of the complainant. As per insurance policy the value of car of the complainant was assessed as Rs.6,03,216/- and the same was on CSD value of Rs.5,68,514/-. At the time of purchase of the said car, the complainant submitted the documents i.e. serving certificate, PAN card, Driving license, Adhar Card etc. Unfortunately,  on 22.03.2019 while to save a animal, the said car  which was driven by the complainant, met with an accident and due to the impact, the said car of the complainant damaged in the said accident. Thereafter the complainant informed the Ops in this regard, the said car was taken by the OPs by towing the same and assured to him by the OPNo.1 that the vehicle is insured from bumper to bumper and it is a cashless policy. On the said assurance, the complainant got repaired the said car from the OP No.1 and to the utter shock of the complainant when he went to receive the delivery of the said car after repairing, the OP No.2 had refused to release the claim amount i.e. repair charges to the reason best known to Ops and started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, when the OP No.2 have not make the payment of the repair cost of car of the complainant, then he had taken the delivery of the car by paying an amount of Rs. 1,07,240/- from his own pocket vide bank receipt no.B375/0427 dated 18.04.2019 & Rs.50,000/-(after obtaining the loan from relatives and friends) vide bank receipt no.B375/0155 dated 08.04.2019. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Ops and requested to release the amount of Rs.1,57,240/- but the Ops always put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant has also served a legal notice dated 09.05.2019 to the Ops but Ops have failed to comply with the legal notice. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint

2.             Upon notices, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable and non-joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that the vehicle in question bearing registration no.HR-03-X-7237 was insured with the OP No.2 vide insurance policy no. HAX/S6671554 for a period i.e. 04.01.2019 to 03.01.2020 for the own damages and the subject vehicle was further insured for the liability and CPA cover from 04.01.2019 to 03.01.2022. It is stated that the complainant gave intimation to the OP No.2 on 23.03.2019 regarding the alleged accident and thereafter, the OP No.2 appointed its surveyor to assess the damages to the insured vehicle. It is also alleged that the claim was intimated by the complainant to the OP No.2 on 23.03.2019 and the answering OP after scrutinizing the claim documents found that the driving license of the complainant/driver was not valid, In this regard, the OP No.2 sent a letter dated 26.03.2019 to him wherein reference of Circular no.TC-23/MV/2007, dated 01.08.2014 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Motor Vehicle Department. He failed to disclose that several letters were sent to him by the OP to provide a smart car driving license issued by the licensing Authority at Nagaland. The letter dated 26.03.2019, 03.04.2019 and 04.04.2019 sent to the complainant but he never replied to any of the above letters. On the request of the complainant the OP got the driving license of the complainant verified from District Transport Office Zunheboto, Nagaland. It is further submitted that OP on receiving the intimation appointed a surveyor Sh. Amit Mohan Vohra to conduct the survey and assess the repair cost of the insured vehicle. The said surveyor conducted the inspection on 23.03.2019 and assessed the net liability of OP as Rs.1,50,451/- Though no liability is admitted by the answering OP as the claim has been closed on the ground of  invalid driving license but even if the same would have been valid to drive the insured vehicle the liability of the insurance company would have been Rs.1,50,451/- as assessed by the surveyor Sh.Amit Mohan Vohra. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 and the complainant has not suffered any harassment or agony and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-A in evidence alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-20 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R2/A along with documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/4 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP No.2 and gone through the entire record including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the accident claim no.C1354345 lodged by the complainant with the OP pertaining to the occurrence of accident on 22.03.2019, wherein the car bearing no.HR-03-7237 duly insured with the OP got damaged, was closed on the ground that the complainant at the time of accident/incident did not hold a valid and effective driving license. The accident of the said car during the validity period of the insurance policy no.S6671554 is not disputed. During arguments, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the complainant did not hold a valid driving license at the time of accident as he failed to get converted his driving license, which was issued in a booklet form, into the smart card as per directions issued by the Office of Transport Officer, Zunheboto, Nagaland vide order dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure R-2/3).

6.             The only issue in the present case is that whether the complainant was holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.  In this regard, we find that the Public Relation Information and District Transport Officer, Zunheboto, Nagaland vide his letter dated 12.04.2019(Annexure R2/3) has duly verified the details/particulars of the DL of the complainant mentioning the validity of the same till 06.01.2021. The District Transport Commissioner, Nagaland vide said letter dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure R-2/3) has not found the DL of the complainant as forged/bogus/fake; hence, there was no justification on the part of the OP to deny the genuine claim of the complainant. Moreover, the District Transport Commissioner, Nagaland has issued the no objection certificate qua the driving license of the complainant mentioning its validity till 06.01.2021. The copy of no objection certificate is available on record in the shape of Annexure C-18. It is not the case of the OP that the said no objection certificate is wrong or incorrect.  As per the no objection certificate (Annexure C-18) issued by the DTO, Nagaland, the DL of the complainant was valid up to 06.01.2021 whereas the accident occurred on 22.03.2019 and thus, the denial of the claim by the OP was neither valid nor justified. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that there is lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

7.             Coming to the relief, we find that the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,57,240/- whereas the surveyor vide his report (Annexure R2/4) has assessed the net liability as Rs.1,05,898. The complainant has not disputed the correctness of the findings shown in the surveyor’s report((Annexure R2/4). The present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.1.

 8.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.2:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.1,05,898/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/-as litigation charges.

 

9.             The OP No.2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP No.2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 25.01.2022

 

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                    Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President