Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 587.
Instituted on : 19.10.2016.
Decided on : 14.11.2018.
M/s Premier Agencies 167, IDC Hissar Road District Rohtak(Haryana) Through its Proprietor Harish Kumar Age 61y s/o Sh. Wazir Chand R/o B6/542 Partap Mohalla Rohtak. M-9896457777.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Appu Ghar Shopping Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Authorised Person.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., ICICI Lombard House, 414, Vir Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhudevi, Mumbai-400025.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kataria, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is Regd. owner of Bolero Maxi Truck No.HR-46d-7853 which was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 21.03.2014 to 20.03.2015. That the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 19.03.2015 and was completely damaged. That complainant immediately informed the opposite parties and requested to pay the amount of claim. That a surveyor was appointed by the opposite parties and after the survey the complainant deposited his vehicle for repair at Lohchab Service Station and after repairs, submitted the bills amounting to Rs.216811/- to the company. That complainant completed all the formalities and requested the opposite parties to pay the claim amount but the OPs are avoiding the same. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.216811/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such the complaint is not maintainable. That in case any amount is ordered to be paid by the answering OP i.e. insurance company, then the same s to be paid to the financer only, being the financer of the vehicle in whose favour the vehicle has been hypothecated. On merits, it is submitted that the said accident/loss has never been intimated or registered to the answering opposite party and no documents have been supplied till date. That complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties that it is observed that as per the letter Ex.R1 OPs had not settled the claim of the complainant on the ground that “Driving license of Mr. Devendra Singh was not valid to drive vehicle on date of loss”. Though no such pleas was taken in reply but the same was also contended at the time of arguments. In this regard, we have observed the driving license Ex.R4 of Devender Singh which is for LMV-Tractor, M/Cycle WG, LMV-NT and we have placed reliance upon the judgment dated 03.07.2017 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan versus oriental insurance company limited whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
- (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.
6. Perusal of aforesaid law itself shows that the holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Courts placed on record by ld. counsel for the complainant in FAO No.4102/15 dated 08.11.2017 titled as Sh. Ram General Ins. Co. Vs. Ravi alias Ravinder & Ors., and FAO NO.2311 of 2016 dated 07.12.2017 titled as United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rahul & Anr. Perusal of Ex.R5(Registration Certificate) itself shows that the gross weight of the vehicle is 2620kg. As the driver was holding the licence of LMV so he was legally entitled to drive the vehicle. Hence the complainant is entitled for claim amount. Through this complaint, complainant has demanded Rs.216811/- alongwith interest. On the other hand, respondent officials have placed on record survey report Ex.R8, conducted by Sh. Gurjeet Chawla & Associates. As per survey report complainant is entitled for Rs.157469/- on account of assessment of loss. The opposite party has prayed in its written reply that the awarded amount should be paid to the financer. On the other hand, at the time of argument ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of Loan Closer Letter ‘Annexure-A’. As the complainant has repaid the loan amount, hence he is entitled for the claim amount.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.157469/- (Rupees one lac fifty seven thousand four hundred sixty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.10.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.11.2018.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
