Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/79/2016

Inderjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   79 of 07.09.2016 

Date of Decision              :   09.01.2017      

Inderjit Kaur W/o Baldev R/o B10/16, Mohalla Bhuchran, Near Baba Balak Nath Mandir, Nawanshahr.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr through its Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700071.

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant  :         Sh.Sumit Kumar, Authorized Rep.

For OPs                :         Sh.D.B. Bhalla, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint presented by Inderjit Kaur, wherein it is alleged that she is owner of Motorcycle bearing No.PB32-M-5965.  She got insured his above said motorcycle after paying premium of Rs.1070/- and insurance policy was issued which was valid from 07.04.2016 to 06.04.2017.  In that insurance policy all damages are covered and as such complainant is entitled for damages for the above said motorcycle.  Her motorcycle met with an accident on 09.04.2016, wherein his near relative was died and his husband was badly injured.  The motorcycle was got repaired after making payment of about Rs.16,000/- and accordingly complainant submitted insurance claim with the insurance company i.e. OP No.1&2 who gave intimation to the complainant vide letter No.732 dated 18.07.2016 that driver of the motorcycle was not having proper driving license.  Rather he has driving license of LMV and as such your claim is rejected.  The OPs caused mental harassment and economic loss to the complainant by not making payment of insurance claim and further prayed that OP be directed to make payment of insurance claim alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly both OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that instant complaint is legally not maintainable.  Further, it is alleged that complaint is in violation of the terms and condition s contained in the policy.  The terms and conditions are the base of the insurance contract and have paramount importance in the eyes of law and as such both the parties can neither go nor claim beyond the terms and conditions of the contract.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.  It is further alleged that as per foremost conditions of the policy the person driving the vehicle holds an effective & valid license to drive the category of vehicle insured and if there is violation of this condition then the insurance company is not liable to pay anything and further submitted that driver of the motorcycle Harish Kumar was having driving license of LMV & LMV-GV only and whereas he was driving motorcycle.  For driving motorcycle MCWG license is required and driver at the time of alleged accident was not holding the said license and this fact is further corroborated from the Motor Accident Claim Form wherein the complainant herself stated that driver at the time of alleged accident was holding license for LMV & LMV-GV.  On merits, the purchase of the insurance policy by the complainant is admitted but the remaining allegations as made under the complaint are categorically denied and prayed that complaint is without merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove complaint, Sh.Sumit Kumar authorized Rep. of complainant tendered into evidence self declaration Ex.C-1 alongwith some documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Param Pal Singh, Sr. Branch Manager as Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 and close the evidence.    
5. We have heard representative of complainant as well as counsel for the OPs and also scanned complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
6. The main contention of the complainant is that she is owner of motorcycle bearing No.PB32-M-5965 and same was got insured from OPs, after making payment of Rs.1070/- and said insurance is valid for 07.04.2016 to 06.04.2017 but unfortunately, the said motorcycle was med with an accident, wherein his near relative was died and her husband was got serious injury and accordingly she submitted insurance claim with OP, but the same was repudiated by OPs vide letter Ex.C-6 on flimsy ground that driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident.
7. On the other hand, the OPs took plea that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because as per terms and conditions of the policy, who driving the vehicle must holding valid and effective driving license to drive the category of vehicle and further if there is any violation of this condition, then insurance company not liable to pay anything.  Further, driver of the motorcycle was not having effective driving license. Rather, he was having LMV & LMV-GV license only.  Whereas, for driving the motorcycle the driver required MCWG license.  Accordingly, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. After considering the respective versions of both the parties, the factum in regard to get the insurance of the motorcycle of complainant is not denied.  Rather, complainant has brought on file, her declaration and insurance policy Ex.C-5 to prove her claim.  The complainant has filed self declaration Ex.C-1 and invoice of the damaged part of vehicle which was provided by concerned M.R. Autos who repaired the motorcycle and driving license of the deceased Harish Kumar is also placed on the file marked as Ex.C-3 and repudiation letter marked as Ex.C-7.  Similarly, the OPs brought on the file affidavit of Param Pal Singh, Sr. Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and some documents which have already brought on record by complainant i.e. insurance policy, repudiation letter etc.  From the scrutiny of the insurance policy we find that the main contention of the OPs in regard to rule and regulations is to be glance from the insurance policy wherein no doubt it is categorically mentioned that driver was not holding effective license at the time of alleged accident.  It is nowhere in the policy that what type of driving license is required.  How we can accept that the driving license of the deceased Harish Sharma who was driving the motorcycle was not effective.  Copy of the driving license is Ex.C-3 which was issued by the competent authority and valid till 25.03.2020 and vehicle clause mentioned as LMV, LMV-GV does not mean that the driver having license of LMV is not entitled to drive motorcycle as well scooter which is also light motor vehicle. So we can assume that deceased Harish Sharma driver of the vehicle was holding effective license to drive the motorcycle.  So in these circumstances, we find that OPs could not able to establish terms and conditions on which they rejected the claim of the complainant.  So under these circumstances we find much force in the arguments advance by the representative of the complainant.  Therefore, complainant is entitled for the relief claim. 
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, this complaint of complainant is partly accepted to the effect that OPs are directed to pay the claim amount of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs.15834/- as mentioned in the invoice Ex.C-2 and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-.  The above said entire compliance be made by the OPs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, complainant is entitled to get interest on the above said whole amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
10. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 09.01.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President