Haryana

Karnal

CC/371/2016

Raghbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Pal Chaudhary

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.371 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 06.12.2016

                                                         Date of decision:22.03.2018

 

Raghbir Singh aged about 58 years son of Harkesh resident of village Baldi P.S.Sadar Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

 National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Division Office Railway Road, Karnal.

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms Veena Rani…..Member

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present  Shri Ram Pal Chaudhary Advocate for complainant.

              Shri Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for opposite party

 

 

ORDER:                    

 

                (Jagmal Singh President)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his car bearing registration no.HR-05AL-4334 with the OP, vide insurance policy no.351011031136134436818 valid from 3.4.2014 to 2.3.2015. The OP assessed the value of the car at Rs.5,63,678/-. Unfortunately, on 19.11.2014 the said car met with an accident in the area of Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal and an FIR no.916 dated 21.11.2014 was got registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. The complainant gave due intimation to the OP and OP instructed the complainant to took the car to the Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Karnal, who is their authorized agent. Accordingly, the complainant took said vehicle to said dealer where his vehicle was surveyed and repaired. The vehicle in question was repaired on 15.1.2015 and said authorized dealer asked the complainant to pay Rs.1,03,000/- as spare and repair charges, on this complainant stated that said amount is to be paid by the OP but the agency stated that the process for verification of driving licence of complainant is in progress and now the complainant will have to pay the said amount and lateron said amount will be refunded to complainant. Under this assurance complainant paid aforesaid amount to said dealer vide cheque no.570926 dated 15.01.2016.  Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP so many times for getting the said amount of compensation but OP did not pay any amount and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant has to wait for a long time. Claim petition was decided on 17.09.2016 in MACT case no.69/2015 by the court of Shri Lalit Batra, Ld. MACT Karnal and compensation has been given by OP to said injured Rohit Kumar. In said claim petition proceedings the driving licence of the complainant bearing no.24884/NTV/T 2011 issue on 2.5.2011. After passing the said order complainant again visited the office of OP for getting the claim but the OP did not pay any claim. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; jurisdiction; there is no deficiency; the intricate questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. The true facts are that the complainant has lodged the claim and duly processed by the OP and the claim of the complainant was not admissible on the basis of violation of M.V. Act and duly conveyed the same to complainant through registered letter dated 8.7.2015. Since driver Raghubir Singh was having Driving Licence no.0519880031888 dated 21.12.1988 valid upto 9.9.2018 valid for motor-cycle with gear and LMV-Tractor only issued by Licensing Authority Karnal and infact, the vehicle in question involved in the accident is Swift car. So, the driving licence is not valid for the vehicle involved in the accident. There is violation of term and conditions of insurance policy as vehicle in question was being driven by a person who was not authorized to drive the same. Moreover, as per section 6 of the M.V.Act “No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving license except a learner license or a driver license issued in accordance with the provision of section-18 or a document authorizing in accordance with the rules u/s 139, the persons specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.” So the claim of the complainant was not admissible and violation of M.V.Act. Hence the claim of the complainant rightly closed and duly conveyed the same to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 8.9.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Basak Ex.OP1/1 and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.O8 and closed the evidence on 19.2.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant was having a car no.HR-05AL-4334 insured with OP, vide policy no.351011031136134436818 valid from 3.4.2014 to 2.3.2015. Said car met with an accident on 19.11.2014 and FIR no.916 dated 21.11.2014 was registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. Complainant gave intimation to OP who appointed surveyor Jatin Sahwney who gave his report Ex.O6. Complainant made the claim which was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 3.7.2015/8.7.2015 Ex.C-1/Ex.O-7 on the ground that the driver of the car in question was not having the effective/valid driving license.

7.             The learned counsel for OP argued that the driving license given by the complainant in the complaint intimation report and motor claim form Ex.O-1 and Ex.O-2 respectively on the verification it was found that the same was for motorcycle-WG, LMV-tractor only and this fact is a clear from report Ex.O-4. Therefore, the driver was not holding the effective and valid driving licence for driving the car. On the other hand, the learned counsel for complainant argued that the number of the driving licence given in Ex.O-1 & Ex.O-2 is different from the number of the driving licence which was got verified by the OP. So, the verification of the driving licence of the complainant has not been got done by the OP. He further argued that the complainant is having the driving licence copy of which is Ex.C-7 and the copy of the same has been given by the complainant to the surveyor also and the number of said driving licence is also mentioned in the report Ex.O-6 of the surveyor. The OP knowingly and intentionally has not got verified the same, therefore, the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

8.             On perusal of claim intimation report Ex.O-1 and motor claim form Ex.O-2 it is found that the licence number mentioned in both these documents is the same i.e. driving licence no.HR-0519880031888, whereas on perusal of verification report Ex.O-4 it is found that the same is with regard to the driving licence no.70837/SDO dated 21.12.1988. Therefore, it cannot be said that the verification got done by the OP is with regard to the same licnece numbers which were given by the complainant. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP has committed a mistake in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the above verification. Hence the OP is deficient.

9.             It is pertinent to mention here that as stated above, the OP has appointed Shri Jatin Sawhney as surveyor, who gave his report Ex.O-6 vide which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.99883/-. The complainant stated that he has paid Rs.1,03,000/- to the dealer for the repair of the car. The surveyor was an independent person, so we have no reason to disbelieve the report of the surveyor. Hence in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for Rs.99883/- the loss assessed by the surveyor.

10.           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.99883/- the loss assessed by the surveyor to the complainant. We further direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.5500/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 22.03.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                              Member