Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/85/2016

Piara Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   85 of 21.09.2016 

Date of Decision              :   09.01.2017      

Piara Ram S/o Husna Ram, Nai Abadi House No.B-3/333, Gali No.4, Nawanshahr.                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr through its Manager.

Opposite party

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant  :         In person.

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

 

ORDER 

PER S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint filed by Piara Ram, wherein it is alleged that he is owner of Traveler Firm which containing about 25 vehicles i.c. Tempo Traveler Cab Marka Tempo Traveler.  All the vehicles are insured for the last 8 years from OP.  Out of the above vehicle there is cab marka tempo traveler bearing No.PB01-5345 and same has been got insured with OP for an amount of Rs.21695/- vide policy No.401803/31/14/6300009732.  The said policy is valid for 14.12.2014 to 13.12.2015.  All type of damages of the said vehicle is covered under the said policy.  The above said vehicle No.PB01-5345 was driven by driver who has having valid driving license but unfortunately, the said vehicle was met with an accident on 11.12.2015.  Regarding that an information was given to OP and claim was also filed having claim No.401803/31/15/63/90000197.  On the next date, surveyor of the OP came to and as such the damages of the vehicle was assessed in the presence of complainant and also asked the complainant to get it repaired on his own expenditure.  The complainant has spent about Rs.1,64,000/- on the repair of the tempo traveler No.PB015345.  Later on, the OP vide letter No.745 dated 12.07.2016 which was sent to the complainant, whereby the claim of the complainant was rejected.  Reason for rejecting the insurance claim is only that driver of the said vehicle was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and further prayed that the OP be directed to make the payment of claim amount alongwith damages of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OP 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 vehicle was having driving license for MCWG, LMV & LMV-GV and he was driving Tempo Traveller having a seating capacity of 12+1.  The said vehicle falls within definitions of Maxicab as defied in Section 2(22) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which says that Maxicab means any Motor constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver for higher or reward.  The vehicle in question is meant for carrying passengers and is a LMV Cab and this fact is further corroborated from the Tourist Permit or National Permit issued by Government of Punjab, Motor Vehicle Department.  It is further alleged that the driver at the time of alleged accident was not having valid license.  Complainant is in no way consumer of the OP.  On merits, the issuance of insurance policy of the vehicle in question 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, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 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-NIC as Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-11 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. After hearing arguments and from the  scrutiny of complaint file, it become clear that factum of obtaining insurance policy of the vehicle bearing No.PB01-5345 by the complainant is not denied by the OP and it is also not denied by the OP that aforesaid vehicle was met with an accident on 11.12.2015 and it is also admitted that complainant submitted insurance claim but the plea taken by OP is that said claim was repudiated on the ground that your driver is not holding required license, hence your claim is not maintainable.  The said letter brought on file by OPs as Ex.OP-9.  In order to settle the dispute between the parties, we have gone through driving license of the driver Dharam Pal Ex.C-3, wherein it is category of the vehicle for driving is mentioned as MCWG, LMV, LMV-GV.  So it means that the driver is fully eligible to drive the Cab having capacity of 12+1.  The main stress of the OP is that as per terms and conditions, the deriver must holding a driving license with endorsement of passenger vehicle. But if we go through the insurance policy Ex.C-1, wherein no said conditions is described.  Rather, the conditions described is only that the person drive the vehicle holding effective driving license.  We cannot say or accept that the driving license issued in the name of Dharam Pal driver of the vehicle in question is not a valid driving license.  In these circumstances, we hold that complainant is entitled for relief claim.
7. In the light of above detailed discussion, this complaint of complainant is partly accepted to the effect that OP is directed to pay the claim amount of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs.1,64,000/- with damages of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-.  The above said entire compliance be made by the OP 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.
8. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 09.01.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President