Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 88/18.04.2019
Harpreet Singh s/o Sh. Charanjit Singh
r/o M-39, A-B II Floor Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017 ...Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited
2E, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055
Through its Divisional Manager ...Opposite Party
Order Reserved on: 28.02.2023 Date of Order: 15.05.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Inder Jeet Singh
ORDER
1. Briefly, the consumer dispute is that complainant/Insured got his vehicle Toyota Innova G4D having registration no. DL1ZZ1494 (briefly 'the vehicle' or 'insured vehicle') got insured having IDV of Rs. 6,30,000/- from OP/Insurer vide policy no. 360801/31/16/6502 ODH 57006/801 valid from 22.02.2016 to 21.02.2017, however, the vehicle met with an accident. The claim was lodged with OP but OP refused to reimburse the valid claim of damages of Rs. 5,37,000/-.
Whereas, the OP justifies to repudiate the accident claim, since at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not holding driving licence for the vehicle being plyed but driving licence of LMV transport goods, it was not for carrying passengers.
2. The complainant alleges allegations of deficiency in services and he seeks disbursement of claim of Rs.5,37,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% from 01.03.2018 till its realization, apart from compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and litigation charges.
Succinctly, the complainant is a consumer of services of OP in the form of risk cover of his vehicle by insurance policy. On 24.12.2016, during the validity of insurance policy, the said vehicle met with an accident and authorized service center of Toyota A-34, Moah Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi raised a bill of Rs. 5,37,000/-. OP had also appointed its surveyor after information of accident by the complainant and surveyor had also assessed damages of Rs. 5,37,000/- but OP rejected the claim by letter dated 01.03.2018 on the frivilous ground that vehicle was driven by Sh. Hans Raj s/o Sh. Ratan Lal having DL no. 0319900118280 and on verification it was confirmed that the DL was not valid to drive the insured vehicle, owning to it the claim was repudiated.
The complainant sent legal notice dated 25.08.2018 to disburse the claim amount along with compensation but no result. The complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, financial losses, harassment and damages since complainant suffered deficiency of services and unfair trade practices on the part of OP.
The complaint is accompanying with copy of insurance cover, repudiation letter dated 01.03.2018, letter for reconsideration dated 17.03.2018, D/L of driver to drive LMV-COM, information letter dated 05.01.2018 under RTI obtained from Motor Licensing Officer RTA Delhi that as per information provided “light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] Kilograms” and copy of extract of driving licence of driver Hans Raj.
3. The OP opposed the complaint that there is suppression of material facts, complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as well as there is no deficiency of any services or unfair trade practice. The complaint is abuse of process of law and there was no occasion of suffering of any kind of inconvenience, mental agony, harassment, financial losses and damages. The claim was repudiated since the insured vehicle was being driven by a person, who was not having requisite licence to drive the same, which is a breach of policy condition. The driver was having licence to drive LMV Transport Goods only and he did not have requisite licence to drive passenger carrying vehicle. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant Shri Harpreet Singh filed his affidavit of evidence, it is in compact form on the lines of complaint, reflecting all the documents filed with the complaint [which are already mentioned in para no. 2 above].
OP filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Raghunath Pawar, Administrative Officer (Legal) and reliance is placed on copy of insurance policy, photograph of damaged vehicle and evidence is led on the pattern of reply.
5. Both the sides filed their written arguments, the same are replica of their case composite of pleading and evidence. The parties were given opportunity to make oral submissions, however, complainant failed to appear and make submissions, however, Sh. Vishavjit Kumar Patra, Advocate of OP made the oral submissions. Their rival plea is not being reproduced, since it has already been detailed in para no. 2 and 3 above.
6.1. The contentions of both the sides, being manifesting from the record, is assessed and considered. The rival stand of parties just raise short questions 'whether or not the driver of complainant was having valid licence to drive the subject vehicle and whether or not claim was repudiated properly being violation of insurance policy'?.
6.2. As per case of OP, the said driver Hans Raj was not holding driving licence to be valid to drive the insured vehicle and since the driver was not holding valid licence to drive that vehicle, the complainant is not entitled for any claim of damages or compensation.
According to the case of the complainant, his driver Hans Raj is holding valid driving licence to drive the subject insured vehicle and even information was also obtained vide letter dated 05.01.2018 under RTI from Motor Licensing Officer RTA Delhi and information provided is of valid DL of driver as furnished as per sec.2(21) of M.V. Act that “light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the un-laden weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] Kilograms”. Since there is valid driving licence and it makes the complainant entitled for damages, which were estimated by authorized service centre as well as by the surveyor.
6.3. By reconciling the case of both sides, the information received under RTI, which is reproduced above, the meaning of LMV, based on the provision of Motor Vehicle Act, it covers light motor vehicle, which means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller. Thus it is abundantly clear that the subject Innova car is being covered under the definition of LMV and the driver Hans Raj was holding of LMV COM. Consequently the driver was holding valid licence to drive the said vehicle.
6.4. The complainant has also proved the estimate of repairs of damages, opined by authorized service center which were also brought to the cognizance of surveyor and OP. However, the valid claim of Rs. 5,37,000/- of damages caused in accident were denied by the OP, it amounts to deficiency in services, thus, the complainant is held entitled for its reimbursement. The amount for repairs for such damages were estimated by the authorized service station and there is no other contrary evidence by OP against the estimates/repairs charges so advised.
The complainant claims interest of 24% but without any basis, however, the complainant was deprived of this. Therefore, simple interest at the rate of 4% pa will meet both ends.
The complainant claims compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, but without any detail inclusive of his source of income and income, therefore, while considering the trauma faced by him for non-settlement claim, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is quantified in favour of complainant and against the OP. The costs are awarded as Rs. 2,000/- in favour of the complainant and against the OP
7. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP to pay amount of Rs. 5,37,000/-, being damages for repairs, along-with simple interest @ 4%pa from the date of complaint till realization of amount; apart from to pay damages/compensation of Rs.10,000/- & costs of Rs.2,000/- to complainant.
OP is also directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, the interest rate will be 6% per annum on amount of Rs 5,37,000/-.
9. The complaint is disposed off as allowed.
10. Announced on this 15th May, 2023 [वैशाख 25 , साका 1945]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
