Haryana

Sonipat

360/2014

NARENDER S/O BHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN TONK

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.360 of 2014

                                Instituted on:29.12.2014

                                Date of order:16.11.2015

 

Narender son of Bhan Singh, r/o Shiv Colony, Gali no.7, Devru road, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., 3^rd Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi through its Branch Manager.

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Parveen Tonk Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Vijay Kumar, Adv. for respondent.

.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the owner of vehicle no.HR69B/0259 which was insured with the respondent. Unfortunately in the month of January, 2014 the said vehicle met with an accident.  The surveyor was deputed to inspect the vehicle who found the vehicle totally damaged. The complainant has spent Rs.2 lacs on the repair of the vehicle and has lodged with the claim with the respondent. But the respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant whereas the respondent has got verified the licence of the driver of accidental vehicle and the same was found to be legal and genuine.  The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is wrong and legal and this act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent in its written statement has submitted that while processing the claim of the complainant, it was revealed under Right to Information Act, 2005 that driving licence of the driver declared in the claim form i.e. Narender Kumar does not match with the official record of RTO.  The relevant clause of the policy in this regard is reproduced below:

“Driver- Any person including the insured

Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.

Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 

          So, after finding the driving licence not authentic, claim of the complainant was rejected vide letter dated 21.7.2014 being in contravention to policy conditions and driver clause. However, the surveyor was authorized to conduct survey and assess the loss.  The surveyor has submitted his report whereby assessment for an amount of Rs.1,18,053/- was made. The complainant, however, was not entitled to the said amount as he has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present case.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and respondent no.1 at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that while processing the claim of the complainant, information regarding the verification of driving licence of Narender Kumar was sought under Right to Information Act, 2005 and from the information under RTI Act it was established that driving licence of the driver declared in the claim form i.e. Narender Kumar does not match with the official record of RTO.  The relevant clause of the policy in this regard is reproduced below:

“Driver- Any person including the insured

Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.

Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 

          So, after finding the driving licence not authentic, claim of the complainant was rejected vide letter dated 21.7.2014 being in contravention to policy conditions and driver clause. However, the surveyor was authorized to conduct survey and assess the loss.  The surveyor has submitted his report whereby assessment for an amount of Rs.1,18,053/- was made. The complainant, however, was not entitled to the said amount as he has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

          As per the complainant, the respondent insurance company has wrongly repudiated his claim, whereas the driver Narender son of Bhan Singh was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident on 18.1.2014.

          The respondent insurance company has filed the written statement; and affidavit only in his evidence. The stand of the respondent in the written statement is that the driving licence of the driver Narender Kumar does not match with the official record of RTO and hence the claim was repudiated.

          In the present case, the complainant has not filed any estimate, bills of repair or any surveyor report regarding the assessment of the loss in the vehicle in question, whereas in the written statement, the respondent admits that the surveyor and loss assessor assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.1,18,053/- in the vehicle in question.

          The respondent in the present case has failed to place on record any driving licence verification report issued by the concerned RTO or any RTI information obtained by the insurance company regarding the driving licence of the complainant Narender Kumar from the office of concerned RTO.  Moreover, they have not produced any surveyor report regarding the verification of the driving licence or regarding the assessment of loss in the vehicle in question. 

          On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record the photo copy of driving licence verification report (Ex.C3) dated 24.07.2014 issued by DTO Wokha Nagaland and as per this report, the driving licence of the complainant was valid upto 9.3.2016 and he was authorized to drive Motor cycle, LMV, MMV and HMV. So, from this report, it is established that the complainant was having a valid and effective driving licence. On contrary to this document, the respondent has failed to place on record any other document. Further as per admission of the respondent, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,18,053/-. So, definitely the complainant is entitled to get the said amount from the respondent. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.1,18,053/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  16.11.2015