Punjab

Sangrur

CC/285/2015

Vinod Bhai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio Gen.Ins.Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajan Kapil

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    285

                                                Instituted on:      06.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.10.2015

 

Vinod Bhai aged 50 years son of Madho Bhai, resident of C-23, Focal Point, Sunam Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office Iffco Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi 110 017 through its Managing Director.

2.             IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, ITGI-STRATEGIC Business Unit, Iffco Complex, Plot No.2 (B&C), Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.             IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor, above Hot Chop Hotel, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv.

For OPs                           Shri Jatinder Verma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

1.             Shri Vinod Bhai, 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  is the owner of TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-AB-8177 model 2012 which was got insured from the Ops under policy number 86209342 which was valid for the period from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 by paying the requisite premium amount of Rs.18,362/-.  The complainant is using the vehicle in question in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment and has also engaged Shri Sushil Kumar as driver.

 

2.             It is further averred that on 22.7.2014, the above said vehicle in question met with an accident near Sangrur-Sunam Road at 6.30 PM, of which FIR number 228 dated 23.7.2014 was recorded at PS City Sangrur. It is further averred that after receiving the information of accident, the Ops appointed Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his survey report directly to the OPs. Thereafter the complainant taken to the vehicle to Chawla Service Centre, Sangrur, who prepared the estimate dated 12.8.2014 for Rs.1,89,808/- plus Rs.55,000/- and the complainant submitted all the required documents to the OPs. But, the case of the complainant is that the Ops vide letter dated 13.10.2014 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.10.2014 on the ground that Sushil Kumar was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the commercial vehicle.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops to pay the claim of the complainant, but nothing happened. 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 an amount of Rs.2,45,308/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own facts, conduct, omissions and acquiescence.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant is insured with the OPs. It is further admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the information of which was received by the OPs and the OPs deputed the surveyor to assess the loss of the vehicle and to verify the documents and thereafter the surveyor submitted his survey report. It is further averred in the reply that after going through the entire documents, it was found that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question, hence the claim was not payable as per the policy terms and conditions.  It is stated that since the claim was not payable, the same was repudiated by the Ops vide letter dated 13.10.2014.  It is further stated that no one can take benefits from its own wrongs.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of estimate, Ex.C-3 copy of labour estimate, Ex.C-4 copy of FIR, Ex.C-5 copy of driving license, Ex.C-6 copy of driving license (heavy), Ex.C-7 copy of verification, Ex.C-8 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-9 copy of policy, Ex.C-10 copy of repudiation letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of letter, Ex.OP-2 copy of remarks of cause of list, Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 copies of details, Ex.OP-5 copy of DL of Sushil Kumar, Ex.OP-6 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-7 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-8 copy of bill dated 22.7.2014, Ex.OP-9 copy of discharge voucher, Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 copies of affidavit, Ex.OP-12 copy of RC, Ex.OP-13 copy of Panchayati Razinama, Ex.OP-14 copy of certificate, Ex.OP-15 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.OP-16 copy of letter dated 25.1.2015, Ex.OP-17 copy of DL of Sushil Kumar, Ex.OP-18 copy of report of DTO, Ex.OP-19 copy of delivery challan, Ex.OP-20 copy of certificate of DTO Patiala, Ex.OP-21 and Ex.OP-22 copies of backside of affidavits of Sukhpal Singh and Sushil Kumar, Ex.OP-23 copy of DL of Sushil Kumar and Ex.OP-24 copy of policy schedule. Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops was closed by order of this Forum.

 

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

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the driver clause of the policy in question, which reads as  “any person including insured: provided that the 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”.

 

7.             So, in the present complaint there is only dispute with regard to the validity and effectiveness of the driving license of the driver Sushil Kumar. The complainant as well as the Ops have placed on record two driving licenses of the driver, Sushil Kumar. The one driving license, Ex.C-1 which is dated 10.6.2013 is valid only for LMV class vehicle and is not valid for Transport vehicles. The other driving license which is Ex.C-6 and Ex.OP-17 is dated 13.7.2010 is valid for LTV and HTV vehicles as well.  The complainant had also requested the Ops to settle the claim in the light of document Ex.C-6, which is a valid driving license, but the Ops have not settled the claim though the surveyor has assessed the net payable  loss i.e. Rs.74,166/- and now during arguments have cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in the Civil Appeal No.3055 of 2008 in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Zaharulnisha and others (2008 ACJ 1928),  wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 18, which is reproduced in verbatim as “In the light of above settled proposition of law, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective license to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving license of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of section 10(2) of the MV Act.”  But, in the present complaint, we find that the complainant was having valid driving license as per document Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 under which he was also entitled to drive LTV class of vehicles also.

 

8.             Further from the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the reply submitted by the OPs is not properly verified as no date has been mentioned in it and the evidence led by the Ops has also not been supported by an affidavit though four dates for producing the evidence were allowed. 

 

9.             In the circumstances of the case, we find it proper and feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are held liable to pay the insurance claim as per the survey report, Ex.OP/6, whereby the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74,166/-.

 

 

10.            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.

 

 

11.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.74,166/- on account of insurance claim as assessed by the surveyor. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

12.            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.

                October 12, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member