DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/99/2019

Date of Institution : 23.07.2019

Date of Decision : 14.01.2020

1. Gurjeet Kaur aged 33 years wife of Late Gurmeet Singh son of Sagar Singh. 

2. Arshdeep Singh aged 11 years minor son of Late Gurmeet Singh son of Sagar Singh through his real mother and natural guardian Gurjeet Kaur.

Both residents of 181, Mehta, Near Government School, Tapa, District Barnala (Punjab).                  …Complainants

Versus

1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., D-301, 3rd Floor, Eastern Business District (Manager Mall), LBS Marg, Bhandup (West) Mumbai-400078 through its Managing Director/Authorized Persons.

2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Tapa Mandi District Barnala. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Amarinder Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for the opposite parties.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainants namely Gurjeet Kaur and Arshdeep Singh minor through his mother Gurjeet Kaur have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai and another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that Gurmeet Singh son of Sagar Singh resident of Tapa died on 10.3.2019 who was husband of complainant No. 1 and father of complainant No. 2. It is further alleged that mother of Gurmeet Singh predeceased on 10.7.2010 and there is no other legal heir of said Gurmeet Singh except the complainants.

3. It is further alleged that Late Gurmeet Singh was owner in possession of motorcycle model CD 110 Dream DX bearing Registration No. PB-19L-9963 which was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 2312100153456101000 valid from 16.11.2017 to 15.11.2018. It is further alleged that said deceased Gurmeet Singh met with an accident at Tapa-Kahaneke Road, District Barnala when a cow suddenly appeared on his way and motorcycle fell into nearby canal and there was minor injury on the left arm of the said Gurmeet Singh so the matter was neither reported to the police nor he has taken any treatment. Thereafter, said Gurmeet Singh lodged the own damage claim of motorcycle for Rs. 22,354.03 paise with the opposite parties but they repudiated the claim vide letter dated 12.2.2018 on the ground that said Gurmeet Singh was not having valid driving license. Said Gurmeet Singh also sent legal notice dated 19.4.2018 to the opposite parties but to no effect which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 22,354/- on account of insurance claim alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 3.2.2018 to 2.7.2019 i.e. Rs. 3,743/-. 

2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and inconvenience. 

3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit. 

4. Upon notice of complaint, opposite parties filed written reply taking legal objections on the grounds of no jurisdiction, no cause of action and locus standi. Further it is submitted that Gurmeet Singh obtained motor insurance Two Wheeler Comprehensive Policy which was valid from 16.11.2017 to 15.11.2018 of vehicle bearing registration No. PB-19-L-9963. Further, after the alleged accident it was reported to the opposite parties who appointed Surveyor Damanjit Singh for verification and assessment of the damage caused to the insured vehicle. Further, during survey it was observed that driving license of the insured was not valid for the class of the vehicle the insured was driving and as per the driving license verification report the insured was entitled to drive only LMC and not motor cycle with gear (MCWG) and since the driver of the insured vehicle was not carrying an effective and valid driving license at the time of loss which was breach of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and a person driving the vehicle should be duly licensed to drive that type of vehicle and must have a valid/ effective on the day of driving the vehicle. It is further submitted that as there was breach of provisions of law so the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 12.2.2018. Further, the complaint was objected on the grounds of abuse of the process of law, not a consumer dispute, not maintainable and no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. 

5. On merits, the opposite parties not denied the issuance of the policy, however they denied the accident on 3.2.2018. They further submitted that Gurmeet Singh lodged the claim with the opposite parties regarding his motorcycle and they allotted claim number C230017257653 and appointed the Surveyor who assessed the loss of the said motorcycle as Rs. 5,804/-. It is further submitted that Gurmeet Singh deceased submitted his driving license issued from RTO Hanumangarh and on verification from the concerned authority the said driving license has been found to be invalid on the date of loss as a person driving the vehicle be duly licensed to drive that type of vehicle and must have a valid driving license on the day he is driving the vehicle. Further, the license was issued from RTO Hanumangarh whereas deceased Gurmeet Singh was the resident of Village Mehta, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala which is also a reason to suspect that as to why the license of a far away place has been produced with which said Gurmmet Singh deceased has no connection, so the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the said Gurmeet Singh deceased vide letter dated 12.2.2018. Rest of the averments of the complaint are denied by the opposite parties and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of their complaint, the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurjeet Kaur complainant No. 1 Ex.C-1, copy of death certificate of Gurmeet Singh Ex.C-2, copy of RC Ex.C-3, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-4, copy of invoice Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, copy of driving license Ex.C-7, copy of letter dated 12.2.2018 Ex.C-8, copy of legal notice Ex.C-9, postal receipts Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence.

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal Assistant Manager Legal Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of verification of driving license Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of survey report Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of letter dated 12.2.2018 Ex.OP-1.2/4, photocopies of photographs of the motorcycle Ex.OP-1.2/5 to Ex.OP-1.2/14, copy of estimate of Guru Nanak Auto Works Ex.OP-1.2/15, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-1.2/16 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments also filed by the opposite parties. 

9. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the motorcycle of the deceased Gurmeet Singh bearing registration No. PB-19-L-9963 was insured with the opposite parties vide copy of insurance policy Ex.C-12 for Rs. 27,639/- which was valid from 16.11.2017 to 15.11.2018 midnight. It is duly proved on the file by the complainants vide copy of death certificate of Gurmeet Singh that Gurmeet Singh husband of the complainant No. 1 and father of complainant No. 2 died on 10.03.2019. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the information regarding the accident of motorcycle of deceased Gurmeet Singh on 3.2.2018 which is within the validity period of the insurance policy, duly received by them and they appointed Damajit Singh Surveyor for verification of accident and to assess the loss who assessed the loss as Rs. 5,804/- vide report Ex.OP-1.2/3. It is admitted by the opposite parties that have repudiated the claim of the insured motorcycle vide letter dated 12.2.2018 Ex.C-8/Ex.OP-1.2/4 on the ground that deceased Gurmeet Singh had no valid driving license at the time of accident. 

10. Now the main question before us whether the deceased Gurmeet Singh was having valid driving license at the time of accident or not ?

11. To reach the just conclusion of the present complaint we have carefully perused copy of verification of driving license Ex.OP-1.2/2 on the basis of which the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the deceased Gurmeet Singh which is now sought for by the complainants being his legal heirs due to death of said Gurmeet Singh. In this verification report Ex.OP-1.2/2 it is clearly mentioned that driving license of Gurmeet Singh was valid for a non transport vehicle from 05.06.2002 to 04.06.2022 and for transport vehicle from 16.03.2016 to 29.03.2019, which duly proved on the file that deceased Gurmeet Singh was having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident on 03.02.2018 as the motorcycle is a non transport vehicle. It is nowhere mentioned in this report that a driving license which is valid for non transport vehicle is not valid for a two wheeler or a motorcycle, so in our view the deceased Gurmeet Singh was having a valid driving license at the time of accident and opposite parties repudiated his claim on a baseless ground which is clear cut deficiency in service on their part. 

12. Further, the complainants claimed an amount of Rs. 22,354.03 on account of insurance claim on the basis of copies of invoices Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 whereas the opposite parties assessed the loss of vehicle as Rs. 5,804/- on the basis of Surveyor report Ex.OP-1.2/3. 

13. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sportking Synthetics Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in IV (2019) CPJ-307 (NC) held as under.- 

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2 (1)(g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (a) (i)- Insurance- Fire accident- Surveyor appointed- Loss assessed-Full and Final settlement-Discharge voucher signed- Further claim repudiated- Deficiency in service alleged- Surveyors are appointed under provisions of Insurance Act 1938 and their report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason- Surveyor has given a clear reason for adopting volumetric analysis for assessment of loss in respect of yarn- Stock was already burnt and only ashes were left- There is no set procedure in Insurance Act, 1938 and Surveyor has used prevailing method of assessment as per accepted norms- For valuation of stocks, clearly market value cannot be taken as loss that has been suffered by complainant as this loss is of his cost price- Surveyor has rightly used invoices and no deficiency is seen in this regard- This Commission would not sit over judgment of Surveyor because Surveyor is a technically qualified and licensed surveyor who has independently assessed loss- Interest can be awarded from date of filing of complaint if amount was not paid before filing of complaint.”

This citation of Hon'ble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present matter and in the present matter also the opposite parties admitted in their written version and copy of survey report Ex.OP-1.2/3 that the Surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 5,804/- but they have repudiated the claim of deceased Gurmeet Singh on some baseless ground as mentioned in preceding paras of this order. In the present complaint the complainants sought for Rs. 22,354/- on account of insurance claim but in view of this judgment the Surveyor report is most important document as he is a technically qualified person appointed by the opposite party under the provisions of Insurance Act 1938 so now in our view the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount of Rs. 5,804/- as assessed by the Surveyor. Hence, by not paying the amount to the complainants on the basis of even Surveyor report is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

14. In view of the above discussion and citation of the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi present complaint is partly allowed. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,804/- to the complainants on account of insurance claim alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual realization and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties are directed to pay the above mentioned amounts to the complainants in equal share and share of the complainant No. 2 Arshdeep Singh being minor be paid in the shape of FDR which will be encashed at the time when he attains the age of majority. The opposite parties are also directed to deposit Rs. 3,000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

  14th Day of January 2020

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

 

            (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member