Haryana

Sonipat

CC/371/2015

Nayeem S/o Vakilu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffico Tokiyo General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Kumar Bedi

19 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.371 of 2015

Instituted on:07.10.2015                  

Date of order:19.07.2016

 

Nayeem son of Sh. Vakilu, resident of H.No.156, Roganran, tehsil and distt. Shamli.

…Complainant.           Versus

Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Pawan Mega Mall, Second Floor, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat.

                                       …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh. Dinesh Kumar Advocate for complainant.

          Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

           Prabha Wati-Member.

           J.L.Gupta-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of truck no. UP-19T-0871 which was insured with the respondent  vide  policy no.34920751 w.e.f. 24.8.2013 to 23.8.2014 and unfortunately the said vehicle has met with an accident during the intervening night of 25/26.10.2013  in the area of Rohtak Gohana Byepass near Gohana and in the said accident, the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged.  The driver Salim and Nasir received multiple injuries.  Nasir had died due to the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. FIR no.339 dated 26.10.2013 u/s 283, 427/304A IPC with lodged with PS City, Gohana.  The complainant has spent Rs.1,45,000/- on the repair of the vehicle.  The complainant thereafter have submitted all the relevant documents to the respondent for the payment of the claim amount, but till date, the respondent has not paid the claim amount to the complainant.  Even the legal notice sent to the respondent has also not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time and the record of driving license was found missing from the concerned RTO/Licensing Authority.  Thus, there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the respondent is not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant.  Further intimation of claim was given to the respondent after a delay of 17 days.  Hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 10.5.2014 and this action of the respondent is justified.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that complainant has incurred Rs.1,45,000/- on the repair of the truck in question, but the respondent vide letter dated 10.5.2014 has repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued his case vehemently that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time and the record of driving license was found missing from the concerned RTO/Licensing Authority.  Thus, there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the respondent is not liable to pay any claim amount to the complainant.  Further intimation of claim was given to the respondent after a delay of 17 days.  Hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 10.5.2014 and this action of the respondent is justified.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent.

 

         The repudiation of the claim on the ground that there is delay of 17 days in giving intimation of claim to the respondent on the part of the complainant.  In our view, the repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay in intimation to the company, is wrong and not legally justified and the observation of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula rendered in First appeal no.43 of 2014 titled as Shri Ram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar decided on 10.3.2014.

 

         The other plea of the respondent that the driver of the vehicle of the complainant was not having any valid and effective driving licence, is also not tenable in the eyes of law,  because the respondent insurance company on the basis of the same driving licence of the driver, has made the payment in the petition under Workmen Compensation Act and the respondent insurance company has deposited a cheque bearing no.433013 dated 31.8.2015 worth Rs.861120/- in petition titled as Smt. Rihana Vs. Naim in the office of Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act.  The perusal of the order dated 4.8.2015 passed in petition titled as Salim Vs. Nayeem also shows that the vehicle no.UP-19T/0871 was also involved in the accident and the ld. Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act, has directed the insurance company to make the payment of Rs.1074203/- to the claimants. 

 

         So, in our view, when the same insurance company has made the payment of the claim amount to the claimants treating the driving licence of the driver to be legal and genuine, then why in the present case, the respondent insurance company has taken the false and baseless plea that the driving licence of the driver was not valid and effective.  Moreover,  the respondent company has not placed on record any report to prove that the complainant was not holding any valid and effective driving licence.

 

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled to get any amount from the respondent and if so, to what amount?

         The complainant has submitted in the complaint that he has incurred Rs.1,45,000/- on the repair of his case and to prove this fact, the complainant has placed on record the copy of bill dated 28.12.2013 worth Rs.27670/-, 80300/-, worth Rs.29500/- dated 3.4.2014 and worth Rs.8000/- dated 25.4.2014 i.e. total amounting to Rs.145470/-.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.145000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum w.e.f. 1.1.2014 (i.e. after 45 days of the date of accident which took place on 26.10.2013) till its realization. 

         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)  (J.L.Gupta)       (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF  Member, DCDRF      President

                                   DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED: 19.07.2016