DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2018
Date of institution: 10.7.2018
Date of Decision: 19.05.2022
M/s Accurate Carriers, Plot No.35, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Shri Janak Raj Goel.
….Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Grand Walk Mall, 4th Floor, Ludhiana through its Manager ……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. A.N. Juneja, Advocate, for complainant
Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate, for OP
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the complainant firm is a proprietorship firm and its proprietor is running the business of transportation to earn his livelihood. The complainant firm is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38-Q-8179, which was duly insured with the OP vide policy No.401314/31/16/6300001286. On 07.12.2017, the driver of the complainant namely Ramesh Kumar son of Kasturi Lal loaded the goods of Hero Cycle, Ludhiana on the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant and left for Ludhiana from Ghaziabad to deliver the goods. However, on the way before Neelo Kheri in the area of PS Taraori District Karnal, suddenly one animal came in front of the vehicle. The driver tried to save the animal and in this attempt, he lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle fell in the pit. In this accident, the vehicle was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the Police of PS Taraori, District Karnal and the police lodged one DEE No.27 dated 07.12.2017. It is further alleged that driver of the complainant namely Ramesh Kumar was having a valid Driving License. After the accident, the claim was lodged with OP for the reimbursement of the loss of the vehicle i.e. Rs.1,65,890/- and all the formalities were completed. The original bills and other required documents were also supplied to the OP by the complainant. However, the OP sent a false and frivolous letter dated 25.5.2018 regarding repudiation of claim on the ground that the insured vehicle comes under the category of heavy oods vehicle i.e. transport goods vehicle and the driver of the complainant was not authorized to drive the vehicle in question since according driver’s clause “Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective and valid driving license to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder, at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such license. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To direct the OP to reimburse the claim amount of Rs.1,65,890/- along with interest
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
- Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to be also granted to the complainant in the interest of justice.
- Upon notice, the O.P. has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that the proprietorship concern has no legal identity and only proprietor of proprietorship concern is competent to file the complaint; that intricate question of law and facts are involved in this case. On merits, it is stated that the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose and the complainant is also a firm and complainant is not falling under the definition of Consumer and on this score also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The due and proper services have been rendered by the Ops and there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and competent authority of the OP found that there is violation on the part of the complainant and he also breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driver Ramesh Kumar was not possessing valid Driving License and DL of Ramesh Kumar was not valid to driver heavy goods vehicle and claim of the complainant was repudiated by the competent authority and repudiation letter dated 25.5.2018 was issued to the complainant. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant have been denied by the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- The complainant has tendered various documents in the shape of evidence. On the other hand, the OP have also tendered various documents in the shape of evidence.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
- It is admitted fact that the vehicle was met with an accident, which proves from Ex.C4 i.e. DEE no.27 dated 07.12.2017. In the present case, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle in question. To rebut this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record Ex.P12, i.e. verification letter of Driving License bearing No.PB1020090162554 of Ramesh Kumar (driver of the vehicle), which is clearly mentioned by the Transport authorities that the said license is valid for driving the heavy goods i.e truck weighing more than 12000 kg is declared valid for operation.
- It is pertinent to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is benevolent legislation enacted to help the poor consumers, which are being regularly harassed by the unscrupulous traders, who even after receiving the money do not provide the proper services to the consumers. We feel that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, will fail if such types of traders are not brought to book and asked to pay compensation.
- In the light of above discussion, the complainant is entitled 1,65,890/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of accident till its realization. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and also pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP is further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
Announced
May 19, 2022
(Ranvir Kaur) (Ranjit Singh)
Member President
CC No.431 of 2018
- Sh. AN Juneja, Adv. for complainant
Sh.D.R. Rampal, Adv. for OP
Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands allowed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
May, 19 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
