DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.326 of 19-07-2010 Decided on 07-12-2010 Sukhdev Singh Romana son of Jeet Singh, aged about 45 years, resident of Adarsh Nagar, Gali No.7, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Zenith House Keshavrao Khade Marg Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400034, through its Managing Director. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sharma Complex, First Floor G.T.Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.P.P.Nayyar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Jai Gopal Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the complainant has filed the present complaint with allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased one Pick up van bearing registration No.PB-03Q-9544, Engine No.32372 and Chassis No. 52062 and the said vehicle was hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. The said vehicle was insured with opposite parties and the Insurance was valid upto 14.11.2009 to 13.11.2010 and the said vehicle was insured for the value of Rs.2,24,001/-. The opposite parties issued a policy/ Cover note to the complainant but has not supplied the terms and conditions to the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 30.11.2009 due to Head light of unknown vehicle with Trala No.PB-03N-3126 in the village Pathrala on Bathinda-Dabwali road. The said vehicle was totally damaged and the driver-Satnam Singh was seriously injured and died afterwards. The aforesaid driver of the vehicle was holding valid license No.51809/NDL for Scooter/Car and Tractor which was issued on 4.11.1996 to 28.02.2013 issued by D.T.O., Bathinda. The original driving license of Satnam Singh was lost and he was issued a duplicate driving license after paying the necessary fee. The DDR No.24 dated 15.12.2009 was lodged in Police Station, Sangat and immediately informed the opposite parties on telephonically regarding the accident who sent their surveyor. The Surveyor took the photographs of the vehicle and submitted his survey report. The complainant many times requested the opposite parties to settle his claim but the opposite parties on 22.03.2010 repudiated the claim by declaring that the driver was holding an invalid license and Road Tax was expired. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have taken legal objections that the vehicle of the complainant is commercial. Sh.Satnam Singh, Surveyor&loss Assessor has submitted his report dated 22.03.2010 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.21,095/-, wherein, he has specifically mentioned that the Road Tax was not paid w.e.f. 30.09.2008 and the driving license is valid for Scooter/Car and Tractor only. So, the claim is not admissible/payable. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and wrong-joinder of opposite parties as alleged the vehicle No.PB-03N-3126 with whom, the accident took place, the owner and driver of the said Tralla is not made the party to the complaint. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the intricate question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require detailed, comprehensive, elaborate oral and documentary evidence. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 30.11.2009 due to Head light of unknown vehicle in village Pathrala on Bathinda-Dabwali Road. The vehicle was totally damaged. The driver of the vehicle who received multiple injuries and scumb to death. He was holding a valid license 51809/NDL for Scooter/Car & Tractor which was issued on 04.11.1996 to 28.02.2013, issued by D.T.O., Bathinda. The driving license of the driver-Satnam Singh was lost. So, he was issued a duplicate license. The DDR bearing No.24 dated 15.12.2009 was also lodged. The complainant informed the opposite parties immediately regarding the accident and the Surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties to verify the spot. The complainant requested the opposite parties to settle his claim but his claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was holding an invalid driving license and Road Tax was expired, whereas, the opposite parties have to settle the claim of the complainant within two months but his claim has not been settled till date. 6. The opposite parties have taken many legal objections that the complainant is plying the vehicle for commercial purpose; the complaint is bad for misjoinder or nonjoinder of necessary parties and there is intricate question of law involved in the present complaint. The opposite parties have objected that the complainant has been plying his vehicle for commercial purpose, no such documentary evidence has been placed on file by the opposite parties to show that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. Hence, this objection of the opposite parties is not maintainable. The complainant is master of his own complaint, he did not demand any relief against the party with whom his vehicle met with an accident. He cannot be forced to implead any such opposite party against whom he had demanded any relief. Further, there is no such intricate question of law involved in the present complaint which cannot be adjudicate by the Consumer Fora. Hence, this objection of the opposite parties is not tenable. 7. A perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that the class of the vehicle is LMV(Light Motor Vehicle) i.e. Maxx Truck. The driving license was issued to the complainant shows that it is issued to him for LMV(Light Motor Vehicle) i.e. only for Scooter/Car & Tractor which means that he was holding the driving license for LMV and Maxx-Maxi which is a pickup van is LMV(Light Motor Vehicle). The Repudiation letter dated 22.03.2010 Ex.C-7 shows that the claim of the complainant is repudiated on the ground that the driver was holding an invalid licence and Road Tax was expired. Photographs vide Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 show that the front portion of the vehicle was damaged badly. 8. A perusal of Ex.R-3 i.e. Final Survey Report shows that the complainant has paid tax upto 30.09.2008, Model/make of the vehicle is Max-Maxi Truck, Fitness Certificate valid upto 21.01.2010, Permit valid upto 02.12.2012, type of permit was Goods Carriage, validity of the driving license of the driver was from 04.01.1996 to 28.02.2013, type of driving license was for Scooter/Car & Tractor only and remark has been given on this Final Survey Report that the Road Tax not paid after 30.09.2008, driving license is valid for Scooter/Car & Tractor only. So, the claim is not admissible. At the end, they have written the final assessment, 'thus final assessed amount for the said vehicle is Rs.21,095/-(Twenty one thousand ninety five rupees only)'. The opposite parties have also got the verification of the driving license of the driver from District Transport Office who has given remark that the driver of the vehicle was holding the license for Scooter/Car & Tractor, which means, he was holding the license for LMV(Light Motor Vehicle). In Ex.R-7 i.e. Goods Carrying Package Policy Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, the driver's clause which is read as under:- “Any person including the insured: Provided that a person driving holds an effective Driving License at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Leamer's License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989.” The opposite parties have taken the support of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal 2009(4) R.A.J. 428 and in case titled M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sukh Deo Yadav 2009(3)R.A.J.11 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashok Verghese, 2009(3) CPJ 156. With utmost regard and humility to the aforesaid authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts. The complainant has given the estimate of Khalsa Motor Store, which has been produced by the opposite parties Ex.R-8, many parts are crossed in it. So, this document is not relevant. The opposite parties have settled the claim of the complainant vide survey report Ex.R-3 to the tune of Rs.21,095/-. Hence, the complainant is liable to get Rs.21,095/-. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.21,095/- as per survey report Ex.R-3 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest @ 9% P.A. till its realization. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 07.12.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
