Haryana

Karnal

543/2011

The Karnal Coop. Sugar Mills Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Kumar

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.   

                                                                Complaint No.543 of 2011                                                                           

                                                                Date of instt.: 2.09.2011

                                                                Date of decision: 19.02.2016

 

 The Karnal Coop Sugar Mills Limited, 3KM Stone, Meerut Road, Ka5rnal through its Managing Director.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

National Insurance company Ltd. Divisional Office, Railway Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.            

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.Surender Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.K.D.Goyal Advocate for the Opposite Party

 

ORDER:                  

                          

                        This  complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act  1986,  on the averments   that the complainant got Bolero Jeep  bearing registration No. HR-45-0014  insured with the Opposite Party  for a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- vide insurance policy bearing No.420500/3110/6300000139,  which was valid from 20.4.2010 to 19.4.2011.  The said vehicle was used for office use.  On 11.9.2010 while the vehicle was deputed on  flood duty  in Indri, the same met with an accident, due to heavy flood  of water in village  Nagli Bandh.  Intimation was given to the Opposite Party regarding the said accident on  13.9.2010. Surveyor was appointed  who surveyed the loss and asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. The vehicle was got repaired from P.P.Automotive, the authorized service station of the Jeep. An amount of Rs.24882/- was spent on the repairs of the vehicle. Thereafter, claim No. 420500/3110/6300000138  was lodged. However, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 8.3.2011, on the ground that the vehicle was registered as commercial vehicle and the driver Chander Hass Mann was not holding a driving licence to drive the same. Thereafter, the complainant sent letter to the Opposite Party that vehicle was having unladen weight of 1705 Kgs, therefore, the same did not fall within the definition of commercial vehicle and as such there was  no  violation of any condition of the insurance policy. However, the Opposite Party refused to accede to the request of the complainant.  In this way, repudiation  the claim of the  claim of the complainant by the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, which caused the complainant the mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                                                                                                                                                                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party, who appeared and filed written statement. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint  and that  complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum in summary manner.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that vehicle of the complainant was commercial as the same was duly registered with Regional Transport Authority, Karnal, as a commercial  one.As per legal opinion, Chander Hass Mann was not holding licence to drive the  said vehicle  as  he was having driving licence only to drive Scooter, Motor cycle, Car, Jeep and Tractor. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Party. The other allegations made in the complaint have  been denied. 

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of Sh.Jatin Sahani, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.R1, affidavit of Shri Ravi Goswami, Assistant Manager, EX.OP2 and documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP6 have been tendered.

 

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                Admittedly, the parties are not at dispute that the vehicle of the complainant, bearing registration No. HR-45-0014 was insured with the Opposite Party and the same was damaged on 11.9.2010 in an accident while on flood duty. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Party on the sole ground that the vehicle of the complainant was a commercial one and the driving was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle.

 

7.                The copy of the insurance policy Ex.C6 shows that the vehicle of the complainant was insured as goods carrying commercial vehicle. The same was registered as commercial vehicle with the Regional Transport Authority, Karnal. There is nothing on record which may show that that the vehicle was registered for private use. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances, it is established that the vehicle of the complainant was a transport vehicle.

 

 8.                 Admittedly, Chander Hass Mann, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was holding driving licence to drive Motor Cycle, Scooter, Car, Jeep and Tractor only. There was no endorsement, authorizing him to drive transport vehicle. Though, the vehicle of the complainant was light motor vehicle, yet the same being registered and insured as commercial vehicle is to be considered as transport vehicle.  Consequently, the licence of the driver was not valid to drive such transport vehicle. In view of the such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the order of repudiation of claim  of the complainant by the Opposite Party cannot be termed as illegal or  unjustified in any manner.  

 

7.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file lbe consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:19.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Surender Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.K.D.Goyal Advocate for the Opposite Party

 

                    Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:19.2.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.