DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 449/10
Randhir Singh, SENIOR CITIZEN
C-6/6432, Vasant Kunj 72 YEARS OLD
New Delhi – 110072 -Complainant
Vs
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Through its Branch Manager)
Upahaar Cinema Complex,
Green Park Extn.
S-13, New Delhi – 110016 -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 08.07.2010 Date of Order: 19.07.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the complainant had insured the commercial vehicle bearing No. DLAYA4952 from the OP for the period from 25.7.2009 to 24.7.2010 vide Policy No. 3004/54546645/01/B00 for total sum of assured value of Rs. 2,05,980/- after paying premium of Rs. 10,492/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 3.12.09 at N.H.8, near Shaukin Farm House, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi while it was driven by the driver of the complainant, namely, Gulshan who also died on the spot. Accordingly, FIR was lodged vide No. 73 dated 03.12.2009. The complainant also reported the said accident to the OP for insurance claim. Subsequently, authorised surveyor of the OP conducted survey of the said vehicle on 11.12.09 and submitted a report to the OP in a most hurried manner even without recording the statement of the complainant. The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 25.1.2010 on the ground that “the driver of the subject vehicle was not holding a valid/effective driving license at the time of accident”. The complainant visited the office of the OP and made it clear that at the time of accident the subject vehicle was employed for his personal work i.e. marriage of his son which was scheduled to be held on 5.12.09 and the same was not in commercial use. The complainant further clarified to the OP that “the complainant having two vehicles, one is private vehicle and other one is commercial vehicle. On the fateful night the son of the complainant went in private vehicle to drop his relatives and in the meantime the driver of the private vehicle left for his house by the commercial vehicle after a hectic day schedule and thinking that he had to come back early in the morning”. Having failed to get any positive response from the OP and pleading unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has moved this forum for redressal of his grievance and specifically praying for the following:
“A. Direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,05,980/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of its actual payment and/or;
- Direct the Opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to complainant by the opposite party and/or;
- Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as the cost of litigation.
OP has filed reply to the complaint and has denied the admissibility of compensation to the complainant for the simple reasons that “the complainant had obtained from the answering OP a commercial policy with respect to the insured vehicle and one of the terms of the said policy had been that the insured vehicle had to be driven by a person holding a valid driving license to drive the insured vehicle and that such person has not been disqualified from holding such license”. Further, the OP has stated that the FIR would show that the case has been registered under the provisions of Sections 279/304A IPC thereby making it apparent that the person driving the insured vehicle had been negligent and rash. Further the OP has categorically stated that Gulshan S/o Sh. Lekh Raj was not holding the valid license authorising him to drive a commercial vehicle. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated in view of the breach of the terms of the policy. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Manager (Legal) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. OP has relied upon judgments of National Commission in RP No. 2394/06 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. B Satyajit Reddy decided on 21.9.2010 and in RP No. 3427/14 titled as Kusum Lata Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 6.11.15. On the other hand, complainant has relied upon following judgments of the National Commission:
- M/s Harsolia Motors Vs M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Appeal No. 159/04 decided on 3.12.2004
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Shivhare in RP No. 2393/03 decided on 13.9.2007 and
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 INDLAW SC 848
We have also laid our hands on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Suresh Chandra Aggarwal in Civil Appeal No. 44/03 decided on 10th July, 2009.
Admittedly, the aforesaid vehicle was insured for commercial purpose and as per copy of the driving licence marked as Annexure ‘A’ for the purposes of identification, the driver of the vehicle was not holding license to drive the commercial vehicle at the time of accident. It is absolutely clear from Para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Vs. S.C. Aggarwal, Civil No. 44/03 that if the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident, the essential condition in the policy would be violated and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the insured. Judgments relied upon by the complainant are not strictly germane to the facts of the case at hand.
In view of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 19.07.2016
Case No. 449/10
19.07.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
