View 23915 Cases Against National Insurance
Tarun S/o Mahinder Kuamr filed a consumer case on 07 Apr 2017 against National Insurance Co.Ltd. in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/268/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Apr 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 268 of 201
Date of institution: 10.06.2014
Date of decision: 07.04.2017
Tarun aged about 24 years son of Mahinder Kumar resident of H. No. 1358, Patri Mohalla, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
...Respondents
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Kaushal Kalyan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents.
ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)
1 The present complaint has been filed by complainant Tarun Kumar under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that motorcycle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-02-AC-6908 Splendor plus Model 2013 met with an accident and damaged badly on 30.03.2014 at about 9.30 P.M. and the FIR No. 39 dated 31.03.2014 was lodged at the police station Khizrabad, District Yamuna Nagar on the same day. The motorcycle in question was insured with the OPs Insurance Company vide its insurance policy bearing No. 39010231136201495693 valid up to 25.07.2014 for a sum of Rs. 42,750/-. Accordingly, the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs Insurance Company and requested the OPs Insurance Company to pay Rs. 14,028/- spent on the repair of the motorcycle in question but the OPs Insurance Company wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice, OPs Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement besides the preliminary objections it has been admitted on merit that the complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the OPs Insurance Company bearing No. 39010231136201495693 valid from 26.07.2013 to 25.07.2014. It has been further admitted that on receiving the intimation regarding the accident of the motorcycle in question the OPs Insurance Company immediately registered the claim and started processing expeditiously. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, a technical person was deputed for final survey who had submitted his final report dated 27.05.2014 and assessed the net payable amount of Rs. 8487/- and expected salvage value of Rs. 125/-. However, the said surveyor had given remarks in his surveyor report that three persons were sitting on the motorcycle in question as per facts mentioned in the FIR at the time of accident whereas as per insurance policy sitting capacity of the abovesaid motorcycle is two (2). Further, the insured was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident and he carries the learner license. At the time of final survey, there was no “L.” Plate found on the subject motorcycle. Secondly, the insured neither submitted the driving licence of pillion rider nor he gave any satisfactory answer. Even till today no driving licence of pillion rider has been presented by the insured. As per rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 relating to learner licence any person who carries the learner licence cannot drive any motor vehicle unless he has besides him a person duly licensed to drive the subject vehicle and also the vehicle carries “L” Plate both in front and in the rear. Further, it has also been mentioned that the name of father of the complainant has been shown as Mahinder Kumar in the FIR whereas in the learner licence the name of father has been mentioned as Mr. Mohit Kumar. Lastly, it has been mentioned that in view of the findings of the surveyor, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company being utter violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and law. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of RC as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of repair bill as Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Arora, Administrative Officer, NIC as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, Surveyor & Los Assessor as Annexure RW/B and documents such as Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 02.06.2014 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Surveyor and Loss Assessor Report as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of Claim form as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of learning licence as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.
7. It is not disputed that the motorcycle make Splendor Plus bearing registration No. HR-02AC-6908 met with an accident on 30.03.2014 during the currency of Insurance Policy which is duly evident from the copy of FIR Annexure C-3 and Copy of Insurance Policy Annexure C-2. It is also not disputed that motorcycle in question was damaged in the accident and a surveyor and loss assessor Sh. Rakesh Kumar was deputed by the insurance company who submitted his report dated 27.05.2014 Annexure R-3 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 8487/-.
8. The learned counsel for the OPs Insurance Company argued that the insured/complainant/registered owner of the motorcycle in question was having learner licence and further three persons were travelling on the motorcycle in question at the time of alleged accident and pillion rider was not having any driving licence which clearly violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. This plea of the Ops Insurance Company is tenable as neither the complainant rebutted the version of the OPs nor placed on file any valid and effective driving license. Further, the complainant has also failed to prove that the pillion rider was having any driving licence at the time of accident as neither the particulars of the driving licence has been disclosed nor the copy of the same has been placed on file. Further, from the perusal of contents of the FIR bearing No. 39 dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure C-3) it is also duly evident that three persons were riding on the motorcycle in question at the time of alleged accident which also violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question.
9. In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company vide its repudiation letter dated 02.06.2014 Annexure R-1 and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
10. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court.07.04.2017.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.