DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.50/09.04.2008<br /> Decided on : 07.11.2008<br /> <br /> Gian Singh S/o Sh.Gurnam Singh, Village Makhe Wala, Police Station Jhunir, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa.<br /> <br /> ..... Complainant.<br /> <br /> VERSUS<br /> <br /> 1. Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Sharma Complex, 3039 A, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> 2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,Registered office ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Mumbai.<br /> <br /> ..... Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the <br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> .....<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Rovin Kumar, counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.P.K.Jindal, counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.<br /> Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER:<br /> <br /> Gian Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda, as well as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai (hereinafter called as the opposite parties No.1 & 2, respectively) for a direction to the opposite parties to pay him an amount of Rs.36,607/- in respect of two bills and also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment, as well as Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.<br /> Admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant had got insured his vehicle, namely, Bolero Camper bearing registration No. <br /> Contd........2<br /> : 2 :<br /> <br /> PB31-E2009 from the opposite parties vide Cover Note No.3003 /51429499/00 /000 against payment of Rs.10750/- as premium on 25.1.2007. The policy was valid upto 24.01.2008. The vehicle is being used for personal use by the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident on 22.11.2007and the complainant had duly informed the Ops about this mishap. The Ops in turn advised the complainant to get the vehicle repaired at his own and later on he shall be compensated. For the repair of his vehicle the complainant had spent Rs.8597/-, but the Ops had refused to make good the payment of Rs.8597/- to him. Again the vehicle met with an accident on 30.12.2007 and the Ops were duly informed about this and for its repair the complainant had to spent Rs.28010/-. His repeated requests to the Ops for the refund of the above amounts fell on deaf ears. The opposite parties were stated to be deficient in service towards the complainant. Hence this complaint.<br /> In the written version filed by the opposite parties, the facts relating to the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant, as well as repudiation of the claim are not disputed. However, it was contended that the complainant had got the insurance policy for the goods carrying vehicle for commercial purpose and not for domestic use. On the receipt of the information regarding the accident from the complainant on 22.11.2007 , the Ops registered the claim at Sr.No.MOTO 0640898 and appointed Er. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. After conducting the survey of the vehicle at Imperial Motors, Bathinda on 23.11.2007, the surveyor assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs.3445/- vide his report dated 26.11.2007. The complainant was having invalid driving license at the time of the accident i.e. for Scooter, Jeep & Tractor only, whereas the vehicle driven by the complainant is a Pickup Van (LTV). Therefore the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 28.11.2007. Regarding the other accident, the complainant had informed the Ops on 30.12.2007 and the Ops registered the claim at Sr.No.MOTO<br /> contd........3<br /> : 3 :<br /> <br /> 0676459 and appointed Er. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss. After conducting the survey of the vehicle at Imperial Motors, Bathinda on 3.1.2008, the surveyor assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs.17973/- vide his report dated 17.1.2008. The complainant was having invalid driving license at the time of that accident also. Therefore this claim was also rightly repudiated vide letter dated 19.1.2008 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Alleging no deficiency on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.<br /> Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.<br /> We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned<br /> counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by them. <br /> From the written version filed by the opposite parties, as well as the letters dated 18.11.2007 and 19.1.2008, copies of which are Exhibits OP-7 and OP-11 respectively, vide which the claim of the complainant had been repudiated, indicates that the only ground for repudiation of the claim was that the driver is having invalid driving license at the time on date of accident i.e. for Scooter, Jeep & Tractor only. Whereas the captioned is a Pickup Van (LTV). The perusal of the Certificate-cum-Policy Schedule, copy of which is Exhibit OP-1, indicates that the same was issued with regard to the vehicle bearing its engine number and chassis number. There was also a mention about Driver's clause on it, which reads as under:<br /> “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 Learner's License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.”<br /> Contd........4<br /> : 4 :<br /> <br /> Exhibit C-6 is the copy of the driving license of the complainant and according to it, he was allowed to drive Scooter/Jeep& Tractor. It is not the case of the Ops that the driving license of the complainant is a fake one. Vide Ext.OP-16 the Investigator had opined that the driving license of the complainant is a genuine one. So vide the customer Copy ( Ext. C-2) and the driving license of the complainant (Ext.C-6), it is clear that the complainant was entitled to drive the vehicle. The counsel for the Ops has vehemently argued that the vehicle of the complainant comes under the category of Pick UP Van (LTV) and he is not entitled to drive Bolero Camper with the driving license he is possessing. As per Section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 page 714 “light Motor Vehicle” has been defined as, “ a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which of a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7,500 kgs.” We fail to understand as to how the OPs had chosen to reject the claim of the complainant on the pretext that the driver is having invalid driving license at the time of accident i.e. for Scooter, Jeep & Tractor only. Whereas the captioned is a Pickup Van (LTV). The vehicle of the complainant certainly falls within the above definition of LTV. It has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jeet alias Ajit Singh and another V/s Poonam and others, 2006(4) RCR Civil 640 that Definition of Light motor vehicle includes a transport vehicle of less than 7500 kilograms. The complainant in the present case was undisputedly holding a genuine driving license to drive a light transport vehicle. This means that he was authorized to drive a goods carriage vehicle as well as long as unladen weight of vehicle which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. The unladen weight of the vehicle of the complainant is stated to be 1725 kg in accordance with the Form of Certificate of Registration, placed and proved on record by the Ops themselves as Ext.OP-18. Merely because there is no specific authorization in driving license to drive a Bolero, would not<br /> Contd........5<br /> : 5 :<br /> <br /> disentitle the complainant from driving it. It is thus held that the complainant was holding a valid driving license to drive Bolero (LTV). <br /> Otherwise also, mere fact that at the time of accident the person driving the vehicle was not holding any valid driving license is not<br /> enough for the insurance company to avoid its liability. We get support in this regard from United India Insurance Co.Ltd v/s Lehru and others, 2003(2)RCR Civil page 278 (Supreme Court) . We are further fortified from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd., v/s Swaran Singh, 2004(2) RCR Civil 114 and Lal Chand v/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2006(4) RCR Civil 204 vide which it has been held that mere absence, fake or invalid at the relevant time are not the defences available to insurer against the insured or third parties. On the same lines, it has been held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. v/s Ajmer Singh and others, 2006(3)RCR civil 499; United India Insurance Co.Ltd., versus Shanti Devi and others 2008(3)RCR 541. It has also been held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jasbir Kaur v/s Om Parkash & others, 2007(1)RCR Civil 347 that making of document as exhibit-validity of driving license cannot be questioned only by producing certificate from the Licensing Authority-mere making exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the document. Insurer cannot be absolved of responsibility to pay compensation merely placing certificate of authority on record. The insurance company was held liable to make payment of compensation. <br /> The complainant has placed reliance upon Ext.C-7 to C-11 vide which a similar claim was passed by the Oriental Insurance Company and had paid a sum of Rs.2890/- on 8.2.2007 to the complainant on account of full and final settlement of the claim of Bolero Camper vehicle as per the Survey Report (Ext.C-8). The Type of license in the Motor Survey Report (Ext.C-8) was mentioned as of Scooter,Jeep,Tractor. <br /> The opposite parties thus are held to be definitely deficient in<br /> Contd........6<br /> : 6 :<br /> <br /> service by not sanctioning the genuine claims of the complainant who has been subjected to mental, as well as physical harassment in seeking his redressal through this Forum. <br /> The complainant has placed on record bill Ext.C-3& C-4 in the sum of Rs.8,597/-& Rs.28010/-, respectively on account of the repairs of the vehicle carried out by him from the Imperial Motors, Bathinda. The complainant seeks the payment of these bills, but in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in 2001(1)CLT 55, 2005(3)CLT 644 & 2007(1)CLT 112, the complainant is allowed the refund according to the loss assessed by the Surveyor through Reports dated 26.11.2007 and 17.1.2008.<br /> As per the above discussion, direction deserves to be given to the Ops to pay the complainant Rs.3445/- and Rs.17973/- as per the Surveyors report dated 26.11.2007 (Ex.OP3) and dated 17.1.2008 (Ext.OP-9), respectively. Act and conduct of the opposite party must have caused him mental agony and harassment for which complainant deserves some compensation which is assessed as under.<br /> As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we allow the complaint with a direction to the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to sanction the claim of the complainant in the sum of Rs.21,418/- (3445/- + 17973/-). The opposite parties are also burdened with Rs.9,000/- as compensation and Rs.4000/- as litigation costs. Compliance of the order be made within two month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced:<br /> 07.11.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />