Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/364

Manish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chola M. S General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

13 Mar 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                364 of 2017

Date of Institution:      10.11.2017

Date of Decision :       13.03.2019

 

Manish Kumar aged about 32 years, son of Sham Lal son of Munshi Ram, r/o Teachers Colony, Machaki Mal Singh Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

M/s Chola M S General Insurance, through its Branch Manager 303, 3^rd Floor, Navelty Plaza, Bhaiwala Chowk, Kumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

.....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim worth  Rs.4,00,000/-with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment,

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

 

inconvenience, mental agony alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Bolero Camper after availing finance from Indusind Bank to earn his livelihood and got insured the same from OP. He paid Rs.21,600/-and OP issued him policy bearing no.3379/01540589/000/00 having policy type : Package-Goods Carrying Vehicle. It is submitted that during the subsistence of policy in question, while going from Faridkot to Delhi, vehicle of complainant met with an accident and at that time, it was being driven by Suraj Singh, driver of the complainant. He was having effective and valid driving license to drive LMV/LMV Cab. It is submitted that due to full sharp lights from the opposite side, driver Suraj Singh could not see the divider and due to this, vehicle struck the divider and in all this Bolero of complainant was totally damaged. Due intimation regarding accident was given to OP who conducted spot survey but till date, they have not paid any claim amount on account of accident of insured vehicle of complainant. despite repeated requests and issuance of legal notice to OP, they have not settled his claim, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and it has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for directions to OP to pay Rs. 5 lacs as compensation  for harassment and mental agony suffered and

 

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

litigation expenses incurred by him besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                    The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.11.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint involves voluminous evidence, which is not permissible in the summary procedure of this Forum. Complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum as well as from answering OP as vehicle in question was being driven by Suraj who had driving license only for Motor Cycle with gear, LMV Car ( Non Transport) and LMV Cab but vehicle of complainant is goods carrying vehicle and there was no endorsement for goods carrying vehicle or for commercial transport including Light Motor Vehicles-Transport and same was not valid for LMV – transport vehicle and thus, no claim is payable to complainant. it is further averred that complainant is not their consumer and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint and moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that Suraj Singh was not having valid driving license for driving the vehicle in question as he is having driving license

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

valid for driving motorcycle with gear, LMV car (non transport)/LMV Cab only. It is also denied that vehicle of complainant is totally damaged in said accident and as per their Surveyor, loss is assessed to the tune of Rs.1,21,722/- and vehicle is reparable and it is not a case of total loss. Rs.1,21,722/- was assessed as loss caused to vehicle of complainant but claim of complainant was repudiated on the ground that at the time of said accident Suraj driver was not having valid driving license. All the other allegations and allegations with regard to relief sought too are refuted and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.                   

5                                                   Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-16 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Satyabratta Dass Ex OP-1, affidavit of Vikram Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex OP-2 and documents Ex OP-3 to Ex OP-8. Despite availing several opportunities, Op did not conclude his evidence and then vide order dated 25.09.2018, evidence of OP was closed by order of this Forum.

7                                              The ld Counsel for complainant argued that with the financial assistance from Bank, complainant purchased a

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

Bolero Camper  to earn his livelihood and got insured the same from OP. He paid Rs.21,600/- and OP issued him policy in question having policy type : Package-Goods Carrying Vehicle. During the subsistence of policy in question, while going from Faridkot to Delhi, said vehicle met with an accident and at that time, it was being driven by Suraj driver, who was having effective and valid driving license to drive LMV/LMV Cab. It is submitted that due to full sharp lights from the opposite side, driver Suraj could not see the divider and it struck the divider and in all Bolero vehicle was totally damaged. Due intimation regarding accident was given to OP who conducted spot survey but till date, they have not settled his insurance claim. Complainant made several requests to OP and also issued legal notice, but OP did not do anything needful, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

8                                        To controvert the arguments of ld counsel for complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that complaint filed by complainant is frivolous and also denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect and false and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is argued that at the time of said accident vehicle in question was being driven by Suraj, but he did not have driving license for driving heavy vehicles. He had driving license only for Motor Cycle with gear, LMV Car ( Non Transport) and LMV Cab but vehicle of complainant is goods carrying vehicle and there was

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

no endorsement for goods carrying vehicle or for commercial transport including Light Motor Vehicles-Transport and DL of Suraj was not valid for LMV – transport vehicle and thus, no claim is payable to complainant. It is further averred that vehicle of complainant is not completely damaged in said accident and as per Surveyor, loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,21,722/- and vehicle is reparable and it is not a case of total loss. Rs.1,21,722/- were  assessed as loss on account of insurance claim pertaining accident of vehicle of complainant but claim of complainant was repudiated on the ground that at the time of said accident Suraj driver was not having valid driving license. All the other allegations are refuted and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.                   

9                                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

10                                            The case of complainant is that his vehicle was insured with OPs, which met with an accident on 12.07.2017. Due intimation regarding accident was given to OP and after conducting spot survey, Surveyor assessed the loss, but OP wrongly repudiated his claim on false and flimsy grounds, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, plea taken by OP is that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that at the time of said accident driver was not having valid driving license.

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

Driver Suraj did not have valid driving license to driver heavy vehicles and goods carrying vehicles and therefore, claim of complainant was repudiated.

11                                         To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 wherein he has reiterated his grievance and Ex C-4 legal notice issued by complainant to OP through his counsel,  further proves the fact that complainant was aggrieved by act of repudiation of claim by OP and he made prayers to them to settle his claim. Driving license of Suraj Ex C-5 clearly reveals that driving license of said Suraj was valid till 9.11.2017 for transport  and till 9.11.2034 for non transport. Accident occurred on 12.07.2017  and thus, at that time said driver Suraj was having effective and valid driving license and repudiation of claim by OP is a wrong act.  Ex C-6 is copy of Certificate of Fitness issued by District Transport Office, Faridkot wherein it is clearly mentioned that vehicle of complainant is complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and the rules made there under and said certificate will expire on 23.10.2017. Ex C-7 copy of Certificate of Exemption from Permit issued by Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda proves that no permit is required to complainant for plying his goods carrying vehicle. Averment of OP that vehicle of complainant is reparable and it is not completely damaged in accident dated 12.07.2017,  has not legs to stand upon in the light of photographs produced on record by complainant. Photographs Ex C-8 to Ex C-13 clear depict the condition of vehicle of complainant.

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

Plea taken by OP that vehicle of complainant is reparable and is not a case of total loss, is in contradiction of photographs adduced by complainant which demonstrate clearly that vehicle of complainant has been totally damaged in said accident and is beyond repairs. These pictures are self explanatory and no doubt can be raised on these. It is observed that complainant has completed all the formalities and made requests to OP to settle his insurance claim, but all in vain. Action of OP in not settling the claim of complainant and repudiating the same on false grounds, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

12                                            From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by parties, it is made out that Opposite Party repudiated the claim of complainant on false grounds and thus, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not clearing the claim of complainant. Complainant has successfully proved his case, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP are directed to make payment of insurance claim of Rs.4 lacs  i.e IDV on the basis of total loss and damage of vehicle in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant shall be further entitled for interest at the rate of 9% on award amount from the date of order. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within prescribed period,

                                         cc no.364 of 2017    

failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 13.03.2019                 

 

(Parampal Kaur)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)

           Member                                   President