Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/615/2018

Rajesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Mohan Sharma

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                             RBT/CC/615/2018

CC No. 615 of 2018

                                                                             Date of Institution: 13.06.2018

                                                                             Date of Decision:    12.09.2022

Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Dalip Chand, House No.141 Green Enclave Colony Daun, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, 141001.…………....Complainant(s)

                                                 Versus

1. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor Dealer Division, 6^th Floor, Krishi Bhawan, Nrupatunga Road, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560001 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd, SCO No.72, Phase 9, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Toyota Tsusho Insurance Broker India Pvt. Ltd., C/o Globe Toyota, B-51, Opposite Verka Milk Plant Industrial Area Phase-VI, SAS Nagar(Mohali) through its Branch Manager.

…………....Opposite Party(s)

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Sh. Vivek Mohan Sharma, Counsel for Complainant(through VC)

              Sh. Harinder Kumar, Counsel for OPs (through VC)

Order by

Pushvinder Singh, President

1.                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant(hereinafter referred to as CC) for directing the opposite parties(hereinafter referred to as OPs) to settle the claim of CC as per the estimate dated 08.11.2017 and the OPs also be directed to pay compensation for physical and mental harassment besides financial loss and litigation expenses.
2.                          The CC has alleged that OP No.1 is engaged in providing services of insurance of vehicles and the CC is having a vehicle Toyota Etios PB-01-A-8470 which is being plied as taxi by the CC. OP No.3 is authorized agent of the OP No.1 and the CC got insured his vehicle from OP No.3 vide policy dated 21.12.2016 which was valid from 25.12.2016 to 24.12.2017.  The premium was also paid by the CC. On the night of 29^th/30^th October, 2017 the car Toyota Etios PB-01-A-8470 stated above met with an accident on Chandigarh-Delhi Highway near Panipat and in this regard an FIR No.513 dated 30.10.2017 was registered. The car of CC was also damaged in said accident and the claimant had filed a claim form duly filled along with all the relevant documents as required by OP No.2 and submitted the same in the office of OP No.2. The CC also submitted the estimate dated 08.11.2017 issued by Globe Toyota Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Phase 6, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab to OP No.2. It was assured by the authorized representative of OP No.2 that the claim will be settled as earlier as possible within a period of 3 to 14 days. The OPs did not communicate any positive response to the CC. The CC visited the office of OP No.2 number of times and also made calls repeatedly and a legal notice was also served upon the OPs. But the claim was not settled.
3.                     Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and Sh. Harinder Kumar Adv appeared and filed reply/version on behalf of the OPs. In reply, OPs alleged that the complaint was using the vehicle for commercial purpose so CC is not covered under definition of consumer. The driver of the CC was not holding a valid licence at the time of driving the vehicle in question which is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the account of delayed intimation of accident to the OPs. OPs denied all other allegations of the CC and in the written reply/version they alleged that the complaint is premature as the claim of the claimant is not decided so far as the claim is neither rejected nor repudiated. The request has been made to the dismiss the complaint.
4.                          In evidence, the CC furnished his affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint as Ex.CW-1/A and also proved copy of RC as Ex.C-1, copy of insurance policy as Ex.C-2, copy of estimate as Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice as Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 along with postal receipts as Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9. On the other hand OPs have furnished reply-cum-affidavit as Ex.OP-1/1, copy of DL of CC as Ex.OP-1, copies of claim intimation slip and denying bill as Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3, copy FIR as Ex.OP-4.
5.                   We have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the file carefully and also gone through the written arguments submitted by the CC.
6.                   The OPs while filing written reply/version have stated that the claim of the CC was still pending so the complaint is premature. However, during pendency of this complaint an interim order was passed by this Commission on 28.03.2022 vide which OPs were directed to decide the claim of CC as alleged in the complaint taking into consideration the provisions of law within 30 days from the receipt of order and they were directed to submit the report. The report was not submitted by the OPs and it was stated by the counsel for OPs that the claim of CC had already been repudiated on 11.04.2018 and an email was also sent by the counsel for the OPs dated 12.09.2022 intimating that the claim of CC was repudiated on 11.04.2018 vide repudiation letter dated 03.05.2018. So it is clear that it was wrongly mentioned in the written reply/version by the OPs that the claim of claimant was still pending at the time of filing of written reply/version as the reply was filed on 25.09.2018 and clam was repudiated on 11.04.2018.
7.                  Now the position is that the facts regarding insurance of vehicle of CC, accident, damage to the vehicle of CC are not denied by the OPs. OPs have themselves provided the copies of FIR and copy of insurance claim intimation letter along with towing bill and as stated by the OPs. The claim of CC was repudiated on the single ground that driver of the vehicle was not having  valid driving license. The vehicle was used as commercial purpose i.e. taxi and as per policy conditions the driver should have an effective and valid Driving Licence and in the present case the driver was holding Light Motor Vehicle(LMV) type Driving Licence.
8.                       Learned counsel for the CC contended that a similar matter with regard to Driving Licence was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2017(4) TAC 11-III (2017) ACC 360 (SC) and Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh also decided in case titled as United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Kumar in Appeal No.97 of 2020 that the license of LMV is a valid licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle(LMV).
9.                     Admittedly, the Pawan Kumar, Driver of the CC’s car was having LMV driving licence and the car (Toyota Etios) is a Light Motor Vehicle. The OPs repudiated the claim only on the ground that Pawan Kumar was driving the car for commercial purpose regarding which he was not holding a valid licence. We have considered the facts and circumstance of the present case and have gone through the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2017(4) TAC 11-III (2017) ACC 360 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:-

                                 “(i) Light motor vehicle as defined in  section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2015) and 2 (48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg, and holder of a driving licence to drive class of light motor vehicle as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs, or a motor car or tractor or road-railer, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence Issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2011 in the form.

(ii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 wef 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained medium goods vehicle in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and heavy passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(h) with expression transport vehicle as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act Le. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of transport vehicle is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of light motor vehicle continues to be same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”

10.            The Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh also relied upon the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited case and also held that the driver who is holding Light Motor Vehicle(LMV) Driving Licence, there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transportation vehicle and he can drive a transportation vehicle of Light Goods Vehicle/Light Motor Vehicle without any endorsement of such class.
11.                     In these, all circumstances and under the guidance of pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and findings of State Consumer Disptues Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Sandeep Kumar in Appeal No.97 of 2020, we are of the opinion that the OPs wrongly repudiated the claim of CC. And in fact they should have settled the claim in favour of CC. The claimant has proved the estimate No.BPE17-02986 as Ex.C-3 and the OPs should decide the claim of CC on the basis of abovesaid estimate which was made by the Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd and on the basis of insurance claim intimation letter dated 08.11.2017 submitted by the CC copy of which is Ex.OP-2 produced by the OPs themselves. The OPs gave wrong information to this Commission while filing their reply/version that the claim of claimant was still pending whereas it had already been decided and claim was repudiated by the OPs and the CC was compelled to file this complaint and as such CC is entitled to compensation for physical & mental harassment along with litigation expenses.  
12.                      In view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is allowed to the extent that the OPs are directed to allow the claim of CC on the basis of estimate No.BPE17-02986 made by Globe Toyota B-51, Phase 6, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- to the CC for physical and mental harassment and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- for litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days on receipt of certified copy of this order otherwise the CC shall have right to get the order implemented through legal process. Copy of this order be sent to the CC and the OPs as per rules. File be returned back to the District Consumer Commission , Mohali for consignment.

Pronounced:-

     12.09.2022                                                     

       

                                                                      (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                     President

 

 

 

    (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                                                     Member

 

 

               

                                                                            (Shivani Bhargava)

   Member