Punjab

Sangrur

CC/808/2015

Jashandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Punia

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  808

                                                Instituted on:    11.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       14.06.2016

 

Jashandeep Singh aged about 21 years son of Karamjit Singh, resident of VPO Chatha Sekhwan, Tehsil and District Sangrur

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, H.No.414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025, having Branch Office at Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Authorised Signatory.

2.     MAX Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Punia, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Gurpreet Sharma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jashandeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Maruti Swift VDI car bearing registration number PB-13-AP-0968 from OP number 2 which was got insured from OP number 1 through OP number 2 vide policy number 3001/MI-02785725/00/000 for the period from 15.5.2015 to 14.5.2016.  Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 20.6.2015 while his cousin Shri Ramandeep Singh son of Gurjit Singh was driving the vehicle on Sangrur Nabha Road due to coming of straw cattle on road suddenly.  It is further averred that thereafter the complainant took his car to the workshop of OP number 2, who took the documents such as driving  licence, RC of the car and insurance policy etc, which were duly submitted. Thereafter the OP number 2 prepared the bill for Rs.1,92,007/- and told the complainant to pay the amount.  Thereafter, the complainant visited OP number 2 to get the delivery of the car, but the OP number 2 refused to deliver the vehicle in question saying that first to pay the charges of the repairs. As such, the complainant visited the office of OP number 1 for payment of the claim, but OP number 1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant as such got the delivery of the vehicle from OP number 2 after payment of Rs.1,92,007/- at his own. As such, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and has prayed that the OPs be directed to release the claim/insurance amount of Rs.1,92,007/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections on the grounds are taken up  that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the driver of the car, namely, Shri Ramandeep Singh was not having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle and as such there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 29.8.2015, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the liability of the OP, if any is not beyond the amount of Rs.1,82,789/- as per the loss assessed by the surveyor. On merits, it is admitted that the car in question was insured for the period from 15.5.2015 to 14.5.2016 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is submitted that after getting the information regarding the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant, the Op appointed Er. Ranjeet Singh Chandhoke, surveyor, who inspected the vehicle at Max Autos, Sangrur and assessed the loss at Rs.1,82,789/- as per the terms and conditions. However, the OP got verified the license of the driver, namely, Ramandeep Singh and found that he was not competent to drive the vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident. The surveyor also submitted his report dated 25.8.2015 and after getting the report of the surveyor the Op repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.8.2015 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question which was got insured from OP number 1.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. However, it is admitted that the Op got repaired the car of the complainant and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.1,92,007/- on account of repair charges, which were duly paid by the complainant.  It is stated that the dispute if any regarding the claim is with the OP number 1 and the OP number 2 has nothing to do with the claim. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-5 copy of RC, Ex.C-6 copy of DL, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 copies of affidavits, Ex.C-9 copy of verification of driving license dated 9.7.2015, Ex.C-10 copy of verification of DL dated 6.8.2015, Ex.C-11 copy of claim status notification, Ex.C-12 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of claim form, Ex.OP1/2 copy of certified cum policy schedule, Ex.OP1/3 copy of final survey report, Ex.OP1/4 copy of affidavit of Ramandeep Singh, Ex.OP1/5 copy of letter, Ex.OP1/6 copy of policy terms and conditions, Ex.OP1/7 affidavit of Meenu Sharma and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Anil Kumar Garg and  closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Swift Maruti VDI car bearing registration number PB-13-AP-0968 which was got insured from OP number 1 under policy number 3001/MI-02785725/00/000 for the period from 15.5.2015 to 14.5.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.25077/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy, which on record is Ex.C-4. It is further not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident on 20.6.2015 during the subsistence of the insurance policy in question, when the cousin brother of the complainant Shri Ramandeep Singh son of Gurjit Singh was going to Nabha and met with an accident on Sangrur Nabha Road, near village Balian due to suddenly coming of a stray animal on the road and the vehicle in question damaged badly.  It is further an admitted fact that the complainant gave the intimation of loss of the vehicle to the Ops, who appointed surveyor and investigator to assess the loss. It is an admitted fact that the surveyor assessed the loss of the car in question to the tune of Rs.1,82,789/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle in question Shri Ramandeep Singh was not having a valid driving license and as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 29.8.2015.  Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim and that the driver of the vehicle Shri Ramandeep Singh was having a valid driving license at the time of accident or not.

 

7.             Ex.C-6 is the copy of driving license number PB-1322030016502 which has been issued on 7.1.2003 is valid upto 06.01.2023 for non transport vehicles, which fact is also supported by the verification of the DTO, Sangrur, Ex.C-9, which clearly proves that the complainant has been authorised to drive the scooter/car only for the period from 7.1.2003 to 6.1.2023 and the date of accident falls within this period. The same is the position in the verification by DTO Sangrur on the document Ex.C-10. Ex.C-12 is the affidavit of Shri Ramandeep Singh to support the contention that he was having a valid driving license at the time of accident.  But, the OPs took the verification of the DTO Sangrur otherwise and opted to repudiate the claim of the complainant wrongly and with an intention not to pay the rightful claim of the complainant. The complainant has also produced on record his own affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention.  Further Ex.C-6 the copy of driving license of Shri Ramandeep Singh Chahal, which clearly shows that he is authorised to drive the non transport vehicles up to 6.1.2023 and the Swift car also falls within this category, more over  the District Transport Officer, Sangrur in his verification on the document Ex.C-9 has clearly mentioned that Shri Ramandeep Singh is authorised to drive the scooter/car, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have wrongly and with malafide intention repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident.

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 (Civil) 111.

 

9.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  It is an admitted fact in the reply that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the car in question to the tune of Rs.1,82,789/-. Moreover, in preliminary objection of the reply, the OP number 1 has clearly mentioned that if there is any liability then the same would be Rs.1,82,789/- as assessed by the surveyor, as such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant the said amount.

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,82,789/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.8.2015 till realisation in full. We further direct the OP number 1  to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 14, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member