Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressed Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 232
Instituted on : 30.05.2018.
Decided on : 18.10.2021.
Dharmender age 41 years s/o Sh. Balwan Singh R/o Village Makrauli Khurd, Tehsil & district Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Lohchab Honda, Opp. Hari Bhumi Office Delhi By Pass, Rohtak through its Manager.
- IFFCO Tokio, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: IFFCO Sadan C1 District Centre, Saket New Delhi-110017 through its Regional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sudhir Duhan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.R.K.Behl, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-12AC-8246 Marka ACTIVA 3G. The above said vehicle was insured with opposite party No.2 vide policy no.1-HFRAOGE for the period from 06.09.2017 to 05.09.2018. The insurance policy of the above said vehicle is Nil Depreciation Policy. On 05.05.2018 the above said vehicle while driven by the daughter of complainant namely Sujata met with an accident and due to this incident, the daughter of complainant was injured. The complainant took the above said vehicle at the authorized service station of opposite party No.1 for repair work. The service Manager of the opposite party No.1 inspected the vehicle and made estimate report to the tune of Rs.26110/-. The service Manager of opposite party No.1 demanded the driving license of driver of the said vehicle and also driving license of registered owner of vehicle alongwith insurance policy cover note. The complainant handed over both the driving license alongwith relevant documents to the service Manager of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 deputed Sh. Hemant Kumar Surveyor to survey the above said vehicle but the opposite party No.1 returned the above said vehicle to the complainant without doing any repair work by saying that insurance company has repudiated the claim so they could not repair the above said vehicle. Due to this act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant had to get repair his vehicle from Om Auto Care Centre, Rohtak by spending Rs.25060/- under the compelling circumstances. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party no.2 may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50000/- including Rs.25060/- for repair charges and litigation expenses of Rs.15000/- and Rs.10000/- for mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that answering respondent is authorized dealer of Honda motorcycle and complaint regarding accident of vehicle in question by the daughter of complainant and her admission in hospital is a matter of record. It is correct that the complainant took the vehicle in question to the service center of answering opposite party but it is wrong that answering respondent assessed the loss of Rs.26110/- rather the answering respondent assessed Rs.16000/- approximately as damage to the vehicle in question which is clearly mentioned on job sheet as well as on the gate pass no.14244 dated 05.05.2018 issued to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant told the answering respondent that the vehicle in question was being driven by him at the time of accident and thus the complainant deposited his license for the insurance claim. The answering respondent duly gave intimation about the accident of vehicle in question to the respondent no.2 and provided all the documents including the driving license of complainant to the respondent no.2. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent as alleged. The dispute is in between the complainant and respondent no.2 and the complainant unnecessarily arrayed the answering respondent as party to complaint. The respondent no.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant and the complainant was not ready to get repair the vehicle on cost thus how the answering respondent repaired the vehicle in question without consideration or free of cost. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that on receipt of damage to the Honda Active-3G, No.HR12AC-8246, an independent surveyor Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly licensed by IRDA, a Statutory body was appointed for verification of fact and assessment of loss. As per claim form submitted by the insured, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Dharmender(insured) at the relevant time of accident. Mr. Dharmender holds a license No.HR-4619960195215 to drive transport vehicle only(TRV Rigid, Chassis, Bus only) which is not valid to drive two wheeler(insured vehicle). The driver was not having a valid and effective license to drive insured class of vehicle at the time of accident. Hence the claim lodged by the complainant barred by general exception no.3(b) of insurance policy. As per the provision of Motor Vehicle Act, the license is required for driving two wheeler vehicle but the complainant was having license for transport vehicle and not for two wheeler. There is a violation of policy terms and conditions and provisions of M.V.Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and also tendered document Ex.C12 in additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 13.10.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/4 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.07.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, Ex.RW2/B and documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/5 and closed his evidence on 05.08.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 05.05.2018. The vehicle was taken to Lohchab Motors for repair and the complainant submitted all the relevant documents. The respondent no.1 intimated the respondent no.2 regarding the accident and submitted all the required and relevant documents with the respondent no.2. In mail Ex.R1/3 received to the respondent no.1 i.e. Lohchab Motors from the respondent no.2 i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., mentioning therein that “As per documents provided by insured/repairer we are not able to entertain the claim.” Meaning thereby the claim of the complainant was denied by the insurance company on the ground that Mr. Dharmender (complainant) who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the two wheeler. As per the complainant, at the time of accident his daughter Ms. Sujata was driving the vehicle. The vehicle was dragged in the Lohchab Motors and surveyor Sh.Hemant Kumar Sharma has been appointed by respondent no.2 for the survey of the vehicle. After considering the survey report and documents supplied by the complainant, the respondent no.2 denied the claim of the complainant as no claim vide letter dated 16.05.2018 which is placed on record as ExR2/3.
7. We have perused all the required documents placed on record by both the parties. The claim of the complainant was primarily denied by the insurance company through Lochab Motors vide mail Ex.R1/3 and finally through no claim letter dated 16.05.2018. The main contention of the insurance company is that the insurance vehicle is a motorcycle and the driver Dharmender who was having a license to drive TRV Rigid, Chassis, bus only and he was not authorized to drive motor cycle at the time of accident. The complainant counsel placed on record a copy of Extract of driving license issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of Haryana Regional Transport Authority, Rohtak dated 12.10.2021 which is Ex.C12. As per this document the complainant’s driving license was issued on dated 30.01.1996 for BUSVST , MCWG and Transport vehicle. The detail of validity of the license is for different categories has been mentioned in this report. The validity details are as under:
“For non transport vehicle the validity of license is from 30.01.1996 to 26.12.2024 and for transport vehicle the validity is 27.12.2019 to 26.12.2024. As per this report motorcycle with gear(MCWG) comes under the non transport category. The driving license number of the complainant is HR4619960195215 and previously the license no. of the complainant was 8/HTV/97/ADD. Meaning thereby initially the driving license was issued for LTV/MC etc. and thereafter the heavy transport vehicle was added in the year of 1997”.
8. The bare perusal of this document itself shows that the complainant can drive the motorcycle on the date of accident. Hence the repudiation of claim on this ground is unjustified and opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Hence the law cited by ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.5826 of 2011 titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Civil Appeal No.1616 of 2003 titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Parami Devi & Others are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case, complainant was entitled to drive the motorcycle as explained above.
9. Now come upto the claim settlement. As per Lohchab Motors vehicle was brought in their workshop on dated 05.05.2018 through gate pass no.14244. Intimation regarding the damages of the vehicle was given to the insurance company and claim of the complainant was denied by respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 further submitted that the complainant was not ready to get repair his vehicle on cost so without consideration, respondent no.1 was unable to repair the vehicle. As per the documents placed on record, an estimate Ex.C10 was given by the Lochab Motors for Rs.26110/- but as the claim was denied by the insurance company so the complainant got repaired his vehicle from Om Auto Care Centre and he spent an amount of Rs.25060/- on the repair. The bill of the same is placed on record as Ex.C11. As such complainant is entitled for the alleged repair charges of Rs.25060/- from the opposite party No.2.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.25060/-(Rupees twenty five thousand and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 30.05.2018 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 Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.10.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
...............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
