BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.56 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 08.02.2018

      Date of Decision: 08.01.2020

M/s Richi Education, 204, First Floor Delta Chamber, 35, G. T. Road, Jalandhar through its Proprietor Amarpreet Pal Singh son of Satpal Multani.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       National Insurance Company Limited registered office-3, Middleton Street, P.Box No.9229, Kolkatta-700071, through its Director/M.D./Manager/authorized signatory.

2.       National Insurance Company Limited, Local Office: G. T. Road, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. Vivek Jain, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. B. P. Singh, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant through its proprietor Amarpreet Pal Singh, wherein alleged that the complainant is aggrieved by the unlawful conduct on the part of the OPs, on account of whom the claim of the complainant has not been paid and aggrieved the complainant is invoking the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is proprietorship firm and is having its office at G. T. Road, Jalandhar. The complainant is owner of one Mahindra & Mahindra XUV W6 Car bearing registration No.PB08-DQ-3330, which was purchased from M/s Makkar Motors, Jalandhar on 29.03.2017 and the same was got insured with OP No.2, vide Policy bearing No.401100/31/16/6100009406 effective from 29.03.2017 to 28.03.2018 with total IDV Rs.13,62,086/- and also paid a premium of Rs.35,673/- for insurance of the said vehicle. Thus, the complainant is a consumer covered within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

2.                That unfortunately, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and regarding that intimation was given to OPs and thereafter, the vehicle was brought to M/s Makkar Motors Pvt. Ltd., authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., for necessary repairs, but during the repair, the OPs failed to settle the claim of the repair, being reason the policy obtained by the complainant was cashless, but despite that the OP did not pay the repair amount directly to the M/s Makkar Motors Pvt. Ltd. rather the complainant had to pay Rs.1,33,400/- to the said workshop, regarding bill dated 26.07.2017. All the relevant documents were already supplied to the OP by the M/s Makkar Motors Pvt. Ltd., for the purpose of claim, but despite that the OPs miserably failed to settled the claim despite repeated requests and visits of the complainant and as such, the act and conduct of the OPs is deficient in service and thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice, but remained in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the repair charges of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs.1,33,400/- alongwith 15% interest per annum from the date of payment of bill till actual realization and further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages towards mental agony, tension and harassment and OPs be also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed a joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and further averred that since the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-08-DQ-3330 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and further submitted that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was got insured by the complainant from the OPs, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder not filed.

5.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Gupta, Divisional Manager of NIC as Ex.OP-1 alongwith some documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8.                The allegations of the complainant as envisaged in the complaint, qua purchase of insurance as well as submitting of insurance claim, are not denied by the OPs rather the OPs alleged in the written statement that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and as such, the complainant is not entitled for the relief rather the claim is liable to be dismissed. The aforesaid plea has been taken by the OPs by placing a reliance upon the Surveyor Report, which is brought on the file by the OP Ex.OP-3, the said report has been scribed by Vikas Sikka and in his report, he has assessed the total damaged amount, to the tune of Rs.1,22,700/- and further in the remarks column, he categorically mentioned that “the person driving the insured’s vehicle holds a driving license authorized to drive Scooter & Car only while the vehicle subject to settlement is a Light Motor Vehicle having seating capacity as 6+1=7 passengers.” By taking into consideration the remarks given by Surveyor in his report, the OPs make a ground to decline the insurance claim of the complainant. We have gone through the report of the Surveyor and find that the Surveyor himself mentioned on first page of the report Ex.OP-3 i.e. Class of Vehicle: LMV-Private. We construe the meaning of Class of Vehicle: LMV i.e. the insured vehicle is Light Motor Vehicle and this fact has been also elaborated by the Surveyor in the remarks column at page No.3 “Light Motor Vehicle”.

9.                Now, we have to ascertain the wording given by Surveyor in his report in Remarks Column that the driving license authorized to driver to drive scooter and car only, but we failed to understand, where-from this wording has been obtained by the Surveyor. Because if we go through the driving license of the driver of the insured vehicle, wherein the driving license authorizedly person to drive LMV, means Light Motor Vehicle, but it is not restrained upto scooter and car rather all the LMV are authorized by this driving license Ex.C-4 to drive and admittedly as per Surveyor report, the insured vehicle in question is also LMV, if so, then how the driver of the insured vehicle was not authorized to drive the vehicle in question rather we find that the surveyor has illegally and wrongly interpreted the word LMV, in his report meant for only car and scooter, whereas it is for all Light Motor Vehicle and the car involved in the accident is also LMV as Surveyor himself elaborated on first page of his report. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the OP has wrongly and illegally took a plea in preliminary objection, in Para No.2 that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Rather we find the driving license of the driver is absolutely effective and valid and therefore, the complainant is entitled for the relief to recover the expenses of the repair of the insured vehicle. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs.1,33,400/- as per bill, but the Surveyor assessed the loss caused to the vehicle is Rs.1,22,700/-, after making the relevant deduction. So, we accept the recommendation made by the Surveyor of the OPs and accordingly, hold that the complainant is entitled for that amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

10.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay repair charges of the insured vehicle i.e. Rs.1,22,700 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 08.02.2018, till realization and further, OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                                 Jyotsna                            Karnail Singh

08.01.2020                                Member                          President