BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.812 of 2011
Date of Instt. 22.11.2011
Date of decision:02.03.2015
Vinod Kumar son of Shri Manohar Lal resident of House No.23, Sector 3, Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.238, IInd Floor Sector 12, Karnal..
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma ……Member.
Argued by:- Sh.Rajiv Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-45-A-4681 was insured with the OP for the period w.e.f 31.8.2009 to 30.8.2010 vide cover note No. 7667315 The said vehicle met with an accident on 13.4.2010 regarding which FIR No.220 dated 13.4.2010 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered with Police Station, Sadar, Karnal. The matter was reported to the OP. The OP appointed surveyor. The complainant submitted all the papers with the OP and submitted the claim but the claim of the complainant was not reimbursed which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in services, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant alongwith the compensation for the harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith some other documents.
2. On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file ;the present complaint; that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint that the complaint was not maintainable and that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. It was also contended that claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 15.3.2011 after thorough scrutiny of the documents on the file by the OP. The complainant has duly conveyed the reason for repudiation of claim. The claim of the complainant was repudiated because it was observed that driver at the time of accident was not holding an effective driving licence since the DL bearing NO.22438/AG/05 dated 27.09.2005 in the name of Jitendera Kumar son of R am Kumar allegedly issued from LA , MV Deptt. Agra submitted by the complainant was found to be fake one as per the report issued by the office of Regional Transport Authority, Agra and hence there has been a serious breach of Driver,s clause contained in the policy apart from violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges that that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-45-A-4681 was insured with the OP for the period w.e.f 31.8.2009 to 30.8.2010 vide cover note No. 7667315 The said vehicle met with an accident on 13.4.2010 regarding which FIR No.220 dated 13.4.2010 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered with Police Station, Sadar, Karnal. The matter was reported to the OP. The OP appointed surveyor. The complainant submitted all the papers with the OP and submitted the claim but the claim of the complainant was not reimbursed.
However, as per the contention of the OP, claim of the complainant was repudiated because it was observed that driver at the time of accident was not holding an effective driving licence since the DL bearing NO.22438/AG/05 dated 27.09.2005 in the name of Jitendera Kumar son of Ram Kumar allegedly issued from LA , MV Deptt. Agra submitted by the complainant was found to be fake one as per the report issued by the office of Regional Transport Authority, Agra and hence there has been a serious breach of Driver,s clause contained in the policy apart from violation of the Motor Vehicles.
5. Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case there is no dispute that the afore stated occurrence had taken place during the subsistence of the policy and at the time of said accident, the ACE was being driven by Jetinder Kumar son of Ram Kumar, the driving licence of whom has been placed on the file as Ex.C2. It has also come in evidence that Insurance Company appointed surveyor who got the said licence verified and the surveyor submitted the report Ex.O4 to Ex.O7. It has come in evidence that vide Ex.O6, issued by the RTO Office, Agra, that no fee regarding driving licence No.22438/AG dated 27.9.2005 has been deposited . It has also been mentioned in the said letter Ex.O6 that no driving licence can be issued by the Department until and unless prescribed fee is deposited with the Department and as such the driving licence Ex.C2 of Jitender Kumar driver of the offending vehicle was not a valid and effective licence. Therefore, since vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy as well as Motor Vehicles Act and thus the claim has rightly been repudiated and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.
6. Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we dismiss the present complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 2.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Argued by:- Sh.Rajiv Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.
Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 2.3.2015.
Announced
dated: 26.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Argued by:- Sh.Rajiv Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.
Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 2.03.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
