BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 2015
Date of institution: 19.01.2015
Date of Decision: 16.07.2015
Yashpal Singh son of Mahavir Singh, resident of village Teur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar.
……..Complainant
Versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Phase 1 Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh through its General Manager.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Narinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Simrandeep Singh, counsel for the OP.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) pay him repair charges of Rs.93,919/- alongwith interest @ 18%.
(b) pay him Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment.
(c) pay him Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased new tractor and got it insured with the OP vide insurance policy Ex.C-2 valid from 24.03.2013 to 24.03.2014. The tractor met with an accident on 24.03.2013 at 10.00 PM at Phase-7, Mohali and was damaged in the accident. FIR Ex.C-3 dated 25.03.2013 was registered in this regard at PS Mataur, Mohali. The complainant informed the OP about the accident. The complainant parked the tractor at the authorised service station of the OP at Morinda for repairs. The surveyor deputed by the OP inspected the tractor. The authorised dealer repaired the tractor and charged Rs.93,919/- from the complainant vide bill Ex.C-4. The complainant submitted the claim to the OP but the OP has illegally repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.06.2013 Ex.C-5. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. The OP has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the at the time of accident the vehicle was bearing temporary registration number and the complainant was plying the vehicle in violation of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The vehicle was being used for commercial activities and the driver of the vehicle was also not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. The OP deputed Mr. Jatin Arora, Surveyor to assess the loss and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74,486/-. However, the claim was repudiated on the ground that driving license of the driver was not valid and the vehicle was not registered and road tax was not paid at the time of accident. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-6.
4. Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Meenu Sharma, its Legal Manager Ex.OP-1/1; affidavit of Jatin Arora, Surveyor Ex.OP-1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to OP-8
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
6. There are certain undisputed facts of the complaint. The insurance policy of the tractor in question is valid from 24.03.2013 to 23.03.2014. The factum of accident on 24.03.2013 of the vehicle in question is admitted.
7. The OP has disputed that at the time of accident, vehicle in question was not having even temporary registration number. There is no delay in intimating the accident by the complainant to the insurance company. The claim lodged by the complainant for the vehicle is Rs.93,919/- paid by the complainant as repair charges has been repudiated by the OP vide Ex.OP-6 on the basis of the surveyor report Ex.OP-2 that on the day of accident the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid driving license and the vehicle was not having temporary number at the time of accident. The complainant has disputed the repudiation of the claim is illegal and contrary to the facts on the record. Therefore, he has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
8. In order to resolve the grievances raised in the complaint, it will be appropriate to look into the repudiation letter Ex.OP-6. The claim has not been settled on the following reasons:
(a) Driving license of Mr. Yash Pal is not valid and effective to drive vehicle on date of loss.
(b) Vehicle was not registered/road tax not paid on date of loss.
9. To appreciate both the grounds taken by the OP for declining the claim of the complainant, it is appropriate to see the copy of driving license of Mr. Yashapl submitted before the OP. A copy of the driving license is Ex.C-6 i.e. the driving license issued in the name of Yashpal showing the vehicle class as LMV and the said license is valid from 28.01.2009 to 20.04.2029. The report of the surveyor Ex.OP-2 regarding the validity of the driving license shows that the driver was holding driving license No.PB-27-20090001096 dated 28.01.2009 which was valid for scooter/car. The investigator of the OP has wrongly interpreted the contents of license of the driver by ousting the driving license to drive the tractor out of the category of LMV. In fact the validity of the driving license has already been proved by the driver before the competent court of law in the MACT Case No. 40 of 28.05.2013 decided on 02.01.2015 by the court of MACT, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the validity of driving license which the driver was holding on the date of accident. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim on the ground that driving license of the driver is not valid and effective to drive the vehicle on the date of loss is illegal and contrary to the facts on record.
10. The next ground for repudiation of the claim by the OP is that the vehicle was not registered and the tax was not paid on the date of loss. The perusal of the investigator report Ex.OP-2 clearly shows that the vehicle in question was having temporary registration and further as per the report the investigator has gathered the information from the dealer that the vehicle in question was purchased on 06.03.2013. As per M.V. Act a new vehicle is initially given temporary registration number which is valid for one month. The vehicle was having temporary registration number on the date of accident is further corroborated by the order of the MACT, SAS Nagar (Mohali) by deciding issue No.1 has given a finding that the vehicle had temporary registration No.PB-23-H(T) 6075. The accident had occurred on 24.03.2013 at 9.30 PM whereas the complainant has got the policy on the same date during the day i.e. on 24.03.2013. Therefore, at the time of accident, the vehicle was having a temporary registration number as per provisions of the M.V. Act and there is no violation by the complainant. Thus, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on this ground that the vehicle was not having temporary registration is contrary to the facts on record which the complainant has amply proved.
11. Thus on both the accounts the complainant has proved his case that his claim has been illegally repudiated and the act of the OP is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the acts of omission of the OP the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and paid and, therefore, the complaint has prayed for adequate compensation. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
12. We, therefore, allow the present complaint against the OP with the following directions to:
(a) to pay him Rs.93,919/- (Rs. Ninety three thousand nine hundred nineteen only) being the repair charges with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 29.06.2013 till actual payment.
(b) to pay him a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) for mental agony and harassment.
(c) to pay him Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 16, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
