Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/13/931

Sh.Rvi Kumar Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chola MS Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

       C.C. No: 931 of 19.12.2013

                                                                      Date of Decision:08.08.2014

Ravi Kumar Malhotra son of Harjas Rai, resident of 705-C, Dugri Road, Model Town, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

                                                    Versus          

1.M/s Chola Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Head Office 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-001, through its M.D.

2.M/s Chola Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office at:132/3, KL Plaza, Rani Jhansi Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             ……...Opposite Parties

        Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.        

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.                 

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Smt.Priti Malhotra, Member.

                 

Present:       Sh.Ajay Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Vyom Bansal, Adv. for Ops.

                            

ORDER

 

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant Sh.Ravi Kumar Malhotra, has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Act’) against M/s Chola Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Head Office 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-001, through its M.D. and others(herein-after in short to be described as ‘Ops’)- directing them to pay a sum of Rs.48,388/- as the claim of the complainant paid by him on the repair of the vehicle alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- on account harassment, mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant besides Rs.11,000/- as legal expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of one Trax Toofan CLS Jeep of Force Motor of Silver Colour and the same was purchased from Gurvir Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 17.6.2011 through invoice No.2011047 which was registered with Motor Vehicle Department, Ludhiana vide registration No.PB-10-DE-2528. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant insured his said vehicle with Op1 and OP2 vide insurance policy bearing No.3373/00344412/000/02, proposal cover Note No.9270420 which was valid from 10.7.2013 to 9.7.2014 against safety of his vehicle. The complainant used this vehicle for his personal use. The complainant is doing the work of Transport Business. On 13.10.2013, the vehicle of the complainant was damaged due to the road side accident, which was driven by the complainant, who is holding a proper and valid LMV driving license bearing NO.PB-1020070125807, near Sahnewal at G.T.Road, with one Tractor Trolley. The claim of RS.48,388/- was lodged before OP2 as the complainant had spent the said amount upon the repair of the said vehicle and the surveyor of the Ops also visited the spot and checked the vehicle. After that the Ops also demanded some documents from the complainant regarding the said claim and after that the complainant submitted all the necessary documents in the office of OP2 but after that the officials of OP2 dilly delayed the matter for settling the accident claim with the complainant. Thereafter, the OP1 sent a letter to the complainant, in which, OP1 had mentioned the driver was not holding an effective driving license and therefore, expressing their inability to pay the claim and they failed to reimburse the claim of the complainant. Thereafter, despite repeated requests and despite serving a legal notice dated 5.12.2013 by the complainant upon the Ops to pass the claim of Rs.48,388/-, Ops failed to do so. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Ops  were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Vyom Bansal, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, they took up certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is frivolous and not tenable at law; the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts as the complainant has been denied for violation of the terms of the policy; present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum as the insured is not covered under the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; no cause of action has been accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum; present complaint is barred by limitation and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum to try and decide the present complaint. Further, it has been submitted that the vehicle of the complainant i.e.Force Toofan Maxi Cab having registration No.PB-10-DE-2528 was insured vide policy No.3373/00344412/000/02 valid for 10.7.2013 to 9.7.2014 by the answering Ops. Upon receipt of the claim for the insured vehicle, an independent surveyor namely Kuldeep Singh Panesar having SLA No.72508 was appointed by the answering Ops to conduct the survey of the damaged vehicle. The registration certificate as submitted by the complainant and his driving license were scrutinized and thereafter, upon the receipt of the survey report and after scrutinizing the documents and after applying the mind by the officials of the answering Ops, the competent authority of the answering Ops had repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.10.2013 for the reason of breach of driver’s clause contained in the policy and the violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. The applicable policy condition is reproduced:-

“Person or class of persons entitled to drive: Any person including the insured: provided that the person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license.”

Therefore, the insured vehicle was being plied in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Contract of insurance, thus the claim was repudiated in view of the said act of the insured. On merits, the facts regarding the insurance of the vehicle in question by the answering Ops as alleged, lodging of claim and repudiating of the same are not denied. However, it is submitted that after proper verification and scrutiny of the documents of the vehicle and the driving license of the complainant, it was found that the complainant was driving the vehicle in question without a valid and effective driving license i.e. the complainant was not holding the effective driving license to drive the commercial vehicle i.e. in the category of goods/transport. The vehicle in question i.e. Force Trax Toofan Maxi Cab is a vehicle manufactured in the category of Transport/Commercial vehicle only and the vehicle in question was registered as a goods/transport vehicle, thus, the present complainant is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops and denying all other allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint against the answering OPs, answering OPs made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint and Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12.

5.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Tarun Kumar, its Asst.Manager Claims(Legal), in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OPs and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has relied upon documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R7. Further, learned counsel for the Ops examined the witness Sh.Baljinder Singh, Steno, DTO, Ludhiana as RW1, in which, he has proved the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

7.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.PB-10-DE-2528 Ex.C2 which was insured by him with the Ops vide policy No.3373/00344412/000/02, cover Note No.9270420 Ex.C3 which was valid for the period from 10.7.2013 to 9.7.2014 on payment of premium. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 13.10.2013 and was damaged and due intimation was given to the Ops qua the same and the claim was lodged which was duly registered and processed. Further, it is a proved fact between the parties that an independent surveyor namely Sh.Kuldeep Singh Panesar was appointed as surveyor to conduct the survey of the damaged vehicle, who inspected the vehicle in question and after his thorough inspection, submitted his Motor Final Survey Report dated 21.10.2013, vide which, he had recommended the loss to the tune of Rs.20,814/-. Further, it is a proved fact on record that after scrutinizing the papers i.e. driving license of the complainant and other papers, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Ops vide letter dated 29.10.2013 Ex.C8(Ex.R7) on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective driving license at the time of accident.

8.                Perusal of the copy of driving license Ex.C4(Ex.R2) of the driver of the vehicle i.e. the present complainant reveals that the complainant/driver of the vehicle was authorized to drive the vehicle of LMV and this driving license is valid upto 13.8.2017. So, it is apparently clear from the copy of this driving license Ex.C4(Ex.R2) that the complainant is holding a license with an authority to drive the LMV vehicle with validity upto 13.8.2017. The dispute between the parties is qua the authority to drive the vehicle in question. As per the contention of the Ops that since the vehicle in question is a Maxi Cab, as such, the complainant was required to have a driving license with an authority to drive the LTV vehicle. But as the complainant was having a license to drive the LMV vehicle, thus, the claim was rightly repudiated.

9.                Perusal of the copy of Sale Certificate bearing No.2011119 dated 3.9.2011 Ex.C12 reveals that in the column of Class of vehicle, it was mentioned as Light Motor Vehicle. However, in the copy of registration certificate Ex.C2, it is mentioned as Maxi Cab. Perusal of the copy of registration certificate Ex.C2 also reveals that there is specifically mentioned the Gross Vehicle Weight as 2850.

10.              Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the definition of Light Motor Vehicle which is described as under:-

“Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.

11.              As such, it is apparently clear from the copy of the registration certificate Ex.C2 that maximum gross vehicle weight of the vehicle of the complainant is 2850 kgs. As such, it does not exceed the requirement of LMV of 7500 Kgs. So, we can easily presume that the vehicle of the complainant falls within the coverage of LMV category. Since the complainant was holding a driving license with an authority to drive LMV vehicle. As such, it cannot be presumed that he was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. So, we are of the opinion that Ops have illegally and arbitrary repudiated the claim of the complainant and repudiation of letter is liable to be quashed.

12.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint and as a result, hereby quash the repudiation letter dated 29.10.2013 Ex.C8 (Ex.R7) issued by the Ops to the complainant and further, we direct the Ops to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of the Survey Report dated 21.10.2013 Ex.R6 to the complainant and further, Ops are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, Ops shall be liable to pay interest @9% from the date of lodging of claim till its realization. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

    (Priti Malhotra)                             (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

     Member                              Member                         President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:08.08.2014

Gurpreet Sharma.

 

 

 

Sh.Ravi Kumar Malhotra vs. M/s Chola Ms General Ins.

 

08.08.2014

 

Present:       Sh.Ajay Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Vyom Bansal, Adv. for Ops.

 

Written arguments not filed. Arguments have been heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

 

    (Priti Malhotra)                             (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

     Member                              Member                        President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:08.08.2014