BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:156 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 15.03.2011.
Date of Decision:.24.01.2017
Jitender Singh son of Shri Ranjet Singh, resident of village Jagrambass, tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
..….Complainant.
Versus
- Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Limited having its registered and Head Office ‘Dare House’ 2nd Floor No. 234, NSC, Bose Road, Chennai-600001.
- Branch Manager, Cholamandlam General Insurance Company, First Floor, Plot NO. 6, Pusa Road, New Delhi.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Shri N.S. Mehran, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Satender Ghangas, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present case are that he had insured his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-7590 under cover note No. 6290084 dated 04.01.2010 issued by the respondent company for the period covering 01.01.2010 to 09.01.2011. It is alleged that on 25.03.2010, the aforesaid vehicle being driven by its driver Ravi Kant met with an accident and as a result of which extensive damages was caused to the vehicle. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- dated 01.04.2010 on account of accidental repair bill No. 383 dated 24.05.2010. It is alleged that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent company as intimated to him vide letter dated 13.11.2010 on the ground that driver Ravi Kant Sharma was not holding valid driving licence at the material time of accident. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OPs no. 1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the respondent company deputed an independent surveyor on dated 26.03.3010 and submitted his report. It is submitted that on going through the reports of Surveyor and other documents it was found that the vehicle in question was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in as much as it stood insured for private use only but was being used for commercial purposes. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 29.07.2010 and he was informed accordingly. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Exhibit C1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-10.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He also filed the written arguments. He submitted that the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver was not holding valid driving license for which vehicle in question and the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. He submitted that the complainant has obtained extract of driving license from the Licensing Authority, DTO Jhunjhunu, which is Annexure C-8. According to the driving license for LMV was issued on 13.12.1991 and it was valid upto 23.01.2023. Subsequently he got renewed his driving license for transport vehicle (HTV, LTV).
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license because the license was issued by the Licensing Authority, Jhunjhunu on 19.05.2010 and it was valid upto 18.05.2013, which is Annexure R-5. Moreover, the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose transporting the passengers. He submitted that the report of surveyor is Annexure R-4, who also recorded the statement of Ravikant Sharma driver, which is Annexure R-6, which proves that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. He submitted that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 25.11.2010, Annexure R-10. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following judgments:-
I Chander Parkash Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2012) CPJ 444 (NC).
II Rajinder Kumar Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. III (2013) CPJ 404 (NC).
III Salinder Kumar Versus New India Assurance Company Limited III (2015) CPJ 159 (UT Chd.).
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have perused the material on record. The accident of the vehicle in question is not in dispute. The OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on two grounds one that the driver was not holding the valid driving license and secondly the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. To prove the said violation of terms and conditions of the policy lies on the OP. From the extract of driving license from the office of Licensing Authority Jhunjhunu, which is Annexure C-8. The driving license to Ravikant was issued for LMV on 13.12.1991 and which was valid upto 23.01.2023. It means the driver was holding the valid driving license for LMV (NT) on the date of accident that is 25.03.2010. Now the question arises whether the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. In this case from the record and pleadings of the parties, we found that no FIR was lodged because copy of FIR has not been produced on the record. To prove that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, the OP has relied on the report of surveyor, who in his report has opined that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we come to this conclusion that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the OP that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. Admittedly, the vehicle in question falls in the LMV category. Hence, it cannot be said that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs. 1,42,600/- as loss assessed by the surveyor in his report, Annexure R-2. The Ops are directed to comply with this order within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise thereafter the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the awarded amount till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 24.01.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member
