Punjab

Sangrur

CC/443/2017

Rupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sonu Marken

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    443

                                                Instituted on:      05.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       07.02.2018

 

Rupinder Singh son of Hakam Singh R/O Village Hathan, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             ICICI Lombard, Nibhaya Vaade, SCO 26, First Floor, Kaula Park, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, through its Manager.

3.             M/s. Sangrur Autos, Dhuri Road, Malerkotla through its Manager/ Proprietor.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Sonu Markan, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1&2:       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.3    :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rupinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his motorcycle Platina 100 KS bearing registration number PB-13-AQ-3830 by paying the requisite premium vide policy number 3005/2011034949/ 00/0000000001 for the period from 12.8.2015 to 11.8.2016.  The case of the complainant is that when he was going on his motorcycle on 7.8.2016, it slipped due to rain and damaged and the complainant also suffered injuries, as such, the complainant intimated the OP number 1 and brought the motorcycle to OP number 3 for repairs, where he spent an amount of Rs.6550/-. Thereafter the complainant submitted the bills to the OPs number 1 and 2, but the OP number 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driving license of the complainant is not valid to drive vehicle on the date of loss.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.6550/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Ops into uncalled litigation and that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. On merits, the insurance of the vehicle is admitted and lodgement of the claim is also admitted. However the case of the OPs is that the claim has been rightly repudiated on the ground of non validation of the driving license of the complainant. However, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, the case of the OP is that it has been wrongly impleaded in the case as there is no deficiency in service on its part. Lastly the OP number 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1  and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/6 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his motorcycle Platina Bajaj from the OP number 1 and 2 for the period from 12.8.2015 to 11.8.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.1367/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-3.  It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 7.8.2016, of which intimation was given to the OP number 1 and the OP number 1 appointed surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4821/-, as is evident from the copy of survey report on record as Ex.OP1&2/6, but the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has contended vehemently that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated on the ground of non submission of the valid driving license at the time of accident.  But, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 as a bare perusal of the driving license of the complainant Ex.C-5 clearly shows that the vehicle is valid to drive non transport vehicles also upto 21.07.2029 and the motorcycle in questions comes to this category and the OP number 1 and 2 has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Further to support this contention, the complainant has cited Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Vijay Kumar Dubey and another 2012(2) CPJ 103, wherein it has been clearly held that a person having a license for heavy vehicles is entitled to drive light motor vehicle but no vice versa and further held that there is no breach of conditions of policy and the insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops number 1 and 2 are liable to pay to the claim as per the survey report i.e. Rs.4821/-.

 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4821/- only. The Ops number 1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation as well as litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 7, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member