Haryana

Karnal

CC/125/2018

Mahabir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jasmer Singh

18 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                             Complaint No.125 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 23.05.2018

                                                         Date of decision:18.07.2019

 

Mahabir Singh, age 45 years son of Shri Daya Nand, resident of VPO Thana Kalan, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat.

 

…….Complainant       

                                        Versus

 

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Manager. Policy no.2315201454847000000, valid from 27.7.2016 to 26.07.2017 mid night (Insurer of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-69C-3443.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Jasmer Singh Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant is the owner of TATA-407 bearing registration no.HR-69C-3443 and the complainant was plying the said TATA-407 for earning his livelihood. The complainant purchased an insurance policy no. 2315201454847000000, valid from 27.7.2016 to 26.07.2017 mid night for net own damages which itself covers the damages of the insured vehicle of the complainant and paid a total sum of Rs.25995/- as insurance charges. On 10.07.2017 the said vehicle met with a Roadside accident and an First Information Report (FIR) no.0271 dated 10.07.2017 under section 279/337/338 IPC was registered by the complainant at Police Station, Butana. In the said accident the vehicle in question was badly damaged and required to repair. After the survey the complainant approached to OP and the survey of the vehicle was duly conducted by the surveyor and may have submitted its report. After the accident, the complainant got the said vehicle repaired from various agencies and paid a total sum of Rs.2,12,116/- against various bills issued by the agencies. The complainant submitted the bill of the repair with the OP and requested to reimburse the amount but OP did not reimburse the amount. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP so many times and requested to settle the claim but on 15.04.2018 the OP has flatly refused to reimburse the amount. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version stating therein that on receiving the intimation claim was lodged. Surveyor was deputed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,22,474/- subject to approval and terms and conditions of the policy. Since Mr. Ompal Singh was stated to have been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and insured had submitted the driving license of Ompal Singh bearing DL no.052000001518 issued from R.T.O. Delhi. On verification from the concerned competent authority, the said driving license was found to be invalid on the date of loss. As per driving license, the licensee was authorized to drive only a motorcycle, LMVCOM, LMV-NT and a 3W-TSR. The insured vehicle being a Goods Carrying Transport Vehicle was beyond the scope of the license held by the driver.  It is further stated that a person driving the vehicle be duly licensed to drive that type of vehicle and must have a valid/effective License on the day he is driving the vehicle as mandated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In case of an accident, a claim is not admissible, if the person driving the vehicle has no valid driving license to drive. So, the claim of the complainant was rightly made as no claim and it is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Intimation in this regard was duly given to the complainant through letter dated 30.01.2018. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 07.01.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 5.7.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of TATA-407 bearing registration no.HR-69C-3443. The complainant got insured his vehicle from OP. On 10.07.2017 the said vehicle met with a roadside accident and an FIR no.0271 dated 10.07.2017 under section 279/337/338 IPC was registered against the driver of the complainant, at Police Station, Butana. In the said accident the vehicle in question was badly damaged, complainant repaired the same and paid a sum of Rs.2,12,116/- to various agencies. The complainant submitted the bills of the repair with the OP and requested to reimburse the bills amount but OP did not reimburse the amount.

7.             The case of the OP is that on receiving the intimation claim was lodged. Surveyor was deputed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,22,474/- subject to approval and terms and conditions of the policy. Since Mr. Ompal Singh was stated to have been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and insured had submitted the driving license of Ompal Singh bearing DL no.052000001518 issued from R.T.O. Delhi. On verification from the concerned competent authority, the said driving license was found to be invalid on the date of loss. As per driving license, the licensee was authorized to drive only a motorcycle, LMVCOM, LMV-NT and a 3W-TSR. The insured vehicle being a Goods Carrying Transport Vehicle was beyond the scope of the license held by the driver.  So, the claim of the complainant was rightly made as no claim.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant intimated the OP in this regard and this fact is not denied by the OP. The complainant filed the claim with the OP but claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the licensee was authorized to drive only a motorcycle, LMVCOM, LMV-NT and a 3W-TSR. No doubt, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged by the OP but there would have been no justification for the OP for denying the claim of the complainant in its entirety only for such violation of term and condition.

9.             In view of authority cited in Revision Petition no.1870 of 2015(NC) decided on 14.08.2018 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Thirath Singh Brar and authority of our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal. In both judgments it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis.

10.            The proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission Haryana is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case complainant violated the terms of the policy regarding use of the Transport Vehicle which was beyond the scope of the license held by the driver. Consequently, the complainant is held entitled to get 75% of the repair charges as spent by the complainant i.e. Rs.2,12,116/-.

11.            The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,22,474/- as mentioned in the written statement. But OP has not placed on record any surveyor report or affidavit of surveyor to prove the said plea. The complainant has placed on record repair charges bills as Ex.C1 to C11. To rebut the said bills OP has failed to place on record any documentary evidence. Hence the act of OP amount to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled to get 75% of the repair charges.

11.            As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the  complaint partly and direct the OP to pay 75% of the repair charges i.e comes to Rs.1,59,087/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.  We further direct the OP to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:18.07.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member