Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 578
Instituted on : 22.11.2018.
Decided on :10.03.2021.
Baljeet Singh, aged 64 years son of Hoshiyar Singh, R/o H. No. 82, Ward no.12 Chamariya Road, Rajiv Nagar, Rohtak(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. & Corporate Office: 1st floor HDFC House No.165-166 Backbay, Reclamation, HT Parekh Marg, Church Gate Mumbai-400020 through its M.D./Director/Incharge.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Tarun Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of a Scooter (Electric) bearing registration no.HR12AG-0535, which was insured with the opposite party, vide policy no.2312100317274800000 valid from 2.6.2018 to 1.6.2019. On 1.9.2018, the vehicle in question was driven by its driver namely Anil Kumar and he was going from Rajiv Nagar, Chamariya Road, Rohtak to Rajiv Gandhi Stadium, Rohtak and when he was reached Panipat Byepass Chowk, suddenly a motorcycle came from the front side and hit the scooter of complainant. After the accident, he informed to opposite party in this regard on the same day. Thereafter, his surveyor inspected the vehicle in question. In the said accident the vehicle in question was damaged and mechanic has assessed the loss/repairing cost of Rs.16,805/-. Thereafter, complainant submitted all the relevant documents including DL of said Anil Kumar as asked by his officials for his claim to the opposite party. The complainant approached to officials of opposite party and requested them to disburse the claim amount in his favour. But the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the opposite party on false grounds vide letter dated 25.09.2018. The complainant also served a legal notice through his counsel on dated 6.11.2018 to the opposite party but the opposite party did not give any reply. Hence, the present complaint. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim amount of Rs.16,805/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of incident till the date of actual realization of the whole of the amount and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that on the receipt of claim intimation regarding the loss to the vehicle on 1.9.2018, answering opposite party registered the claim of the complainant and allotted the claim number C230018189236 for better communication in regard to the present loss and appointed an Independent Surveyor Innovative Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to assess the loss to the vehicle. During verification it was found that Anil Kumar driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving license on date of accident. Sh. Anil Kumar was having driving license to drive LMV, LMV transport vehicle, whereas he was driving MCYL at the time of accident. It is pertinent to mention here that mechanism to drive light motor vehicle is entirely different from that of driving two wheeler. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.09.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A, document Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/5and has closed his evidence on dated 02.03.2020.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. We have perused all the documents placed on record by both the parties. The perusal of Ex.C9 shows that initially the driving license was issued in the name of Anil Kumar s/o Suraj Mal having license no.HR6919940190658 on dated 15.05.1994 and the date of expiry of license is 31 March 2022. As per the report, the license holder Anil Kumar s/o Suraj Mal was authorized to drive MC/SC/Car /Jeep/LTV only . Initially the license was issued vide license no.6649/D/GSD dated 15.05.1994 by licensing authority Gohana and thereafter renewed on dated 03.04.2008 by SDO (C)-cum-RTA Secretary, Gohana. In fact, the endorsement regarding LMV (TR) has been endorsed in this license. Hence the license was renewed as per instructions of the licensing authority time to time. The bare perusal of this document itself shows that initially the license was issued by the licensing authority to drive the vehicle motorcycle, scooter etc. We have minutely perused Ex.C5 driving license of Sh. Anil Kumar s/o Suraj Mal placed on record which was issued by RTA Sonepat. In this license the licensing authority authorized Mr. Anil Kumar to drive LMV(TR). After believing this document the insurance company denied the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driving license of Anil Kumar was found invalid as he was holding the driving license of LMV and LMV(Transport) only and at the time of loss, he was not holding a valid license to drive a motorcycle and after considering this fact, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as no claim as per section 3 of M.V.Act. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 29.04.2008 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors.
7. Perusal of report of licensing authority shows that initially the driving license was issued for motorcycle, scooter, car, jeep for LMV but during the renewal, an endorsement regarding transport vehicle has been made at that time. The licensing authority has only mentioned LMV. Merely endorsement of LMV on the driving license is not presumed that the driving license LMV holder cannot drive motorcycle, car, jeep and scooter etc. In fact the report of the Licensing Authority itself shows that initially the driving license was for motorcycle, car, jeep and valid upto 20.02.2022. Hence the driver was holding a valid license at the time of accident and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. As per bill Ex.C7, the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.16805/- on account of repair of the vehicle. We have minutely perused the survey report placed on record by the respondent as Ex.OP1/4 and in this report, the estimate value of the repair of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.21261/- and the surveyor has assessed the amount of the repair of vehicle as Rs.9160/-. The surveyor has assessed the labour charges as Rs.885/- and on the other hand a bare perusal of Ex.C7 shows that estimate of labour charges issued by the Viren Speedro Pvt. Ltd. is mentioned as Rs.2500/-. In this way the surveyor has wrongly assessed the claim of the complainant without any basis as on account of labour and he has assessed an amount of Rs.885/- instead of Rs.2500/-. In this way we came into the conclusion that there are some other discrepancies in the assessment and after perusal of all the documents we came to the conclusion that complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.16805/- as per Ex.C7 because the vehicle was purchased in the year 2018 and met with an accident in the same year after a few months.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.16805/-(Rupees sixteen thousand eight hundred and five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.11.2018 till its realisation and also to pay 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.03.2021.
............................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
.............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
