Punjab

Sangrur

CC/264/2022

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Avinav Chawla

30 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 264

 Instituted on:   09.03.2022

                                                                         Decided on:     30.09.2024

 

Ravinder Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of House No.577, Guru Nanak Nagar, Nalas Road, Rajpura, Punjab.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Kaula Park, above Bank of Baroda, Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Avinav Chawla, Advocate.

For the OP                :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill,                  :President

Sarita Garg,                                     :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh,                            :Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:

 

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party on the ground that the complainant purchased motor goods carrying vehicle package policy number 404200312110000014 for his vehicle TATA 1613 having registration number PB-11-CM-9677 for insured sum of Rs.13,00,600/- by paying the requisite premium amount of Rs.42,110/- to the OP. Further case of complainant is that the said vehicle/tanker is in contract with Indian Oil Refinery, Sangrur.  Further case of complainant is that on 11.09.2021, the said empty vehicle was being driven by the driver Simarjeet Singh alongwith helper Gursharanjeet Singh from Sour Pangi, Himachal Pradesh to Punjab and at about 11.15 PM at Phuda Mod, the vehicle suffered accident due to sudden appearance of a stray animal on the road and the vehicle fell into the valley of 60-70 meters, as it was a hilly area, as such driver and helper suffered injuries but the vehicle in question damaged which was later on recovered by Hydra and recovery van towed the vehicle to Sangrur.  Further case of complainant is that on 12.09.2021 at about 2.40 AM the matter was reported to PS Jahalma, Distt. Lahol Spiti, Himachal Padesh and the claim was lodged with the OP, vehicle was got repaired and the bills were submitted to the OP and further the complainant completed all the formalities for getting the claim amount, but the OP did not release the claim on the ground that the driver does not hold the license for driving the vehicle carrying hazardous goods, whereas as per the report of RTO, driver Simarjeet Singh can drive the vehicle with hazardous goods.  Further it is stated that at the time of accident the vehicle was empty and the report of the surveyor Er. Rajesh Aggarwal verify that the load challan was empty. As such, the complainant has alleged that the OP has wrongly withheld the rightful claim of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to release the claim amount of Rs.2,46,787/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim till its realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question bearing registration number PB-11-CM-9677 was insured with the OP for the period from 18.04.2021 to 17.04.2022 for Rs.13,00,600/- (less deductible). It is admitted further that after receipt of the intimation regarding accident, the OP appointed Shri Chirag Thakur, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for spot inspection, who submitted report dated 18.09.2021 subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  Thereafter the OP appointed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the final loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.1,05,000/- only after deducting depreciation at the rate of 50% and 25%. The said surveyor also deducted Rs.5000/- regarding salvage value and Rs.1500/- regarding excess clause vide his report dated 18.10.2021. Further it is averred in the reply that at the time of accident, driver Simarjeet Singh was not possessing valid and effective driving license and he was not authorised to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods as driving license was not endorsed for hazardous goods, therefore, the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident as per section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. It is stated further that even if it is assumed that the tanker of the offending vehicle was empty at the time of accident, even then this situation is not sufficient to absolve the owner of he vehicle from its liability, because even at the time of accident, the offending vehicle falls in the category of ‘transport vehicle’ for transporting hazardous goods and, therefore, driver of the vehicle required driving license to transport hazardous goods, as such the OP legally closed the claim file of the complainant as ‘no claim’ and informed the complainant vide letter dated 06.12.2021. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/11 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant availed services of the OP by getting insured his vehicle in question  vide policy number 404200312110000014 for insured sum of Rs.13,00,600/- by paying the requisite premium amount of Rs.42,110/- to the OP, copy of policy on record is Ex.C-1. Further the learned counsel has argued that the said vehicle/tanker is in contract with Indian Oil Refinery, Sangrur and on 11.09.2021, the said empty vehicle was being driven by the driver Simarjeet Singh alongwith helper Gursharanjeet Singh from Sour Pangi, Himachal Pradesh to Punjab and at about 11.15 PM at Phuda Mod, the vehicle suffered accident due to sudden appearance of a stray animal on the road and the vehicle fell into the valley of 60-70 meters, as it was a hilly area, as such driver and helper suffered injuries but the vehicle in question damaged which was later on recovered by Hydra and recovery van towed the vehicle to Sangrur and also has produced Ex.C-2, copy of DDR. The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the vehicle suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,46,787/- and to support the contention, the complainant has produced on record copies of various bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12. Ex.C-13 is the motor survey report of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal dated 18.10.2021. In the present case grievance of complainant is that the OP did not release the claim amount on the ground that the driver does not hold the license for driving the vehicle carrying hazardous goods, whereas as per the report of RTO, driver Simarjeet Singh can drive the vehicle with hazardous goods.  Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that at the time of accident the vehicle was empty. As such, the complainant has alleged that the OP has wrongly withheld the rightful claim of the complainant and is deficient in its service towards the complainant.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that after receipt of the intimation from the complainant, the OP appointed Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the final loss, who assessed the loss at Rs.1,00,500/- only after deducting depreciation at the rate of 50% and 25%. The said surveyor also deducted Rs.5000/- regarding salvage value and Rs.1500/- regarding excess clause vide his report dated 18.10.2021. Further it is contended by the learned counsel that at the time of accident, driver Simarjeet Singh was not possessing valid and effective driving license and he was not authorised to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods as driving license was not endorsed for hazardous goods, therefore, the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident as per section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is contended further that even if it is assumed that  tanker of the offending vehicle was empty at the time of accident, even then this situation is not sufficient to absolve the owner of the vehicle from its liability, because even at the time of accident, the offending vehicle falls in the category of ‘transport vehicle’ for transporting hazardous goods and, therefore, driver of the vehicle required driving license to transport hazardous goods, as such the OP legally closed the claim file of the complainant as ‘no claim’ and informed the complainant vide letter dated 06.12.2021 and lastly, the learned counsel for the OP has contended for dismissal of the complaint. 

7.             Now, the only question for determination before us is whether the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant or not for want of valid driving license. Ex.OP-4 motor spot survey report dated 18.09.2021 of Shri Chirag Thakur, Surveyor and Loss Assessor shows that as per insured/claim form/DDR vehicle was empty at the time of accident. Similarly, Ex.OP-7 motor survey report dated 18.10.2021 of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal shows that the vehicle was empty at the time of accident as per claim form.  Further the complainant has relied upon the endorsement on letter dated 10.11.2021 issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Sangrur, Ex.C-16,  wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the driver Simarjeet Singh is having license valid till 29.12.2025 for transport vehicles and he can also drive the oil tanker on the driving license. Ex.C-15 is the copy of driving license of Simarjeet Singh wherein validity for transport mentioned upto 29.12.2025.  The OP has not produced any documentary evidence to the contrary.  As such, we find that OP is not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Moreover, during arguments, complainant cited circular number Tech/Mot/1415/01, CMD Master Circular No. 06/2014-15 dated 14^th May, 2014 issued by General Manager of National Insurance to All Regional-in-Charges, wherein it has been clearly mentioned at serial number 3 that if the vehicle is driven empty and not carrying any dangerous or hazardous goods at the time of accident, even training certificate is not to be insisted upon but the driver should be in possession of a valid and effective DL to drive the category of vehicle that met with the accident. If these conditions are fulfilled, the claim can be settled as normal/standard claims provided the claim is otherwise in order.

8.             Now, coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.2,46,787/- from the OP. To support this contention, the complainant has produced on record copies of various bills/estimate i.e. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12. Ex.C-9 is the copy of bill issued by Bansal Motor Store, Sangrur for Rs.10,840/-. Ex.C-10 is the copy of estimate for Rs.7000/- and it does not contain any name of firm. Further Ex.C-8 is the bill for Rs.4500/- but it does not contain any date. Under the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice would be met, if we go with the motor survey report dated 18.10.2021 Ex.OP/7 of Er. Rajesh Aggarwal, Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors which is duly supported by his affidavit Ex.OP/10, wherein he has assessed the net loss payable to the complainant at Rs.1,00,500/- after deduction of Rs.1500/- as Excess Policy clause, whereas as per the policy conditions in the policy document Ex.OP/1, the Compulsory Excess (Excess Policy Clause) should be deducted only Rs.1000/-, as such, after calculation, we find that the OP is liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- (Rs.1,02,000/- minus excess clause of Rs.1000/-).  

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- being the claim amount alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 09.03.2022 till its realisation in full. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- as  litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by OP within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

10.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

 

                September 30, 2024.

 

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh) (Sarita Garg)   (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member               Member                   President