BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.:114 of 2017.
Date of Instt.: 01.06.2017.
Date of Decision: 17.10.2018.
Sharwan son of Prabhu Ram, resident of village Pilimandori, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus
1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Dare House, 2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.
Present: Sh. K.K. Jangra, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Vishnu Delu, counsel for the opposite parties.
ORDER:
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties with the averments that the complainant got his vehicle make Tata-407 bearing Registration No.HR-62/6295 insured with the OPs vide insurance policy No.3379/01197152/000/00 valid from 05.06.2015 to 04.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.6,20,000/-. The complainant made a payment of Rs.21,465/- as insurance premium to the OPs. Therefore the complainant is consumer of OPs as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. It is further submitted that the above said insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 03.07.2015 in Delhi and the vehicle got damaged on account of the accident. An intimation regarding the same was given to the OPs and thereafter the OPs deputed their Surveyor. Thereafter, the surveyor inspected the accidental vehicle and assessed the damages. Thereafter the complainant was assured that the insurance claim will be released to him immediately. However, till date the payment of damages has not been released to the complainant, which is approximately to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. It is further submitted that the OPs have been avoiding the matter on the ground that the complainant has not submitted Smart card of driving license from the Licensing Authority whereas the complainant has already submitted ‘No Objection” certificate issued by the Licensing Authority.
3. It is further submitted that action on the part of OPs in not making the payment of damages to the complainant of the insured vehicle amounts to deficiency in rendering service to him. The complainant has further prayed that the present complaint may be allowed and the OPs may be directed for making a payment of Rs.1 Lakh on account of damages caused to the insured vehicle along-with interest and compensation. Hence, the present complaint.
4. On being served the OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a joint written statement, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material fact etc. have been raised.
5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the claim in the present case has been repudiated by the OPs as the complainant never provided driving license in the shape of Smart Card issued by Registering Authority, Nagaland. As per notification No.TC-23/MV/2007 (PP/I/DT) Kohima 1st August, 2014 of Transport Commissioner, Kohima driving licenses issued other than Smart card are cancelled. It is further submitted that the complainant has submitted the driving license of Mr. Thakar Ram driver in normal format and not in Smart Card format. The complainant was asked several times to furnish Smart Card but the same was not provided by the complainant. Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OPs is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A and the documents as Annexure C1 to Annexure C12 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Satyabratta Das, Assistant Manager Claims (Legal) in evidence on behalf of the OPs as Ex.OPW1/A and the documents as Annexure R1 to Annexure R5 and closed the evidence.
7. We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record. In the present case, it is not disputed that the insurance of the vehicle in question was issued by the OPs and the same was valid from 05.06.2015 to 04.06.2016. It is also not disputed that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 03.07.2015, during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The insurance claim in the present case has been repudiated by the OPs only on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. Therefore the onus was upon the OPs to prove that the driving license submitted by the complainant was not valid and effective on the date of accident. However, the OPs have not examined any official from the concerned District Transport Office, Government of Nagaland to prove the genuineness of the driving license Annexure C9 submitted by the complainant. From the perusal of the photocopy of the driving license Annexure C9 submitted by the complainant it is revealed that the driver Sh. Thakar Ram Das was authorized to drive the light motor vehicle and transport vehicle and the driving license was valid upto 08.03.2032. Thus, in the absence of any contrary evidence, it cannot be held that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not having a valid and effective driving license. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case title as “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Salima and Others” decided on 07.12.2017 is relied upon.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are liable for making a payment of damages caused to the vehicle on account of accident. Regarding the quantum of damages the complainant has prayed for making a payment of Rs.1 lakh. However, in support of the above contention the complainant has not submitted the bill paid by him for repair of the vehicle. The documents Annexures C4 to C7 submitted by the complainant are estimates and the same are not authentic documents regarding the damages caused to the insured vehicle. As per Inspection Report Annexure R5 the surveyor has assessed the net liability of the insurer as Rs. 33,000/- only. Keeping in view the damages assessed by the surveyor vide his report Annexure R5 we think it appropriate to direct the OPs for making a payment of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant on account of damages caused to the insured vehicle. The OPs are further directed for making a payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony. The present order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the present order otherwise the amount shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum for the default period. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:17.10.2018
(Raghbir Singh) President Distt. Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Rajni Goyat) (Jasvinder Singh)
Member Member
