ORDER                                 Dated:  03-10-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant filed this complaint on  22-10-2013  and
alleged that the complainant’s commercial vehicle no. HR 63 B 1273 was
insured by OP and insurance was valid from 16.09.2010 to 15.09.2011.
The insured vehicle was running to New  Delhi to Rampur (U.P.) and met
with an accident on 23.06.2011 at Hasan Pur, Village  District
Muradabad, UP.  FIR no 562/2011 dated 24.06.2011 was lodged in
P.S.Kalra  and  the driver Sh. Ashok Singh was died  in the accident.
On 29.06.2011, complainant informed OP about the loss of the driver
and damage of the  vehicle and OP generated the desired claim in
respect of the complainant’s insurance policy.   Thereafter a spot
survey was made by Mr. H. L. Arora ( investigator )  who assessed the
loss of Rs. 8,48,806/-  .  Complainant duly supplied required
documents to the OP  but vide letter dated 17.12.2011 OP repudiated
the claim of the complainant on the ground that  driving license of
the driver was for LMV and not for HMV at the time of the accident.
While the DL of driver was  valid w.e.f. 28.06.2008 to 27.06.2011 for
HMV. Hence prayed that OP be directed to pay the assessed loss,
compensation for pain and litigation charges with interest.

2.     In reply, OP did not deny the insurance policy of the vehicle
of complainant and  payment of its premium .  OP also admitted that as
per the spot surveyor report dated 04.11.2011 of Sh. H.L. Arora a loss
for a sum of Rs. 7,05,797/- (approx)  was assessed .  Rest of the
allegations made in the complaint were denied by the OP.  It was
further stated that the driver of the vehicle  was not having any
valid and effective driving license at the time of accident,
therefore, the  present complaint is not maintainable due to the
breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

3.     In support of complaint, complainant filed affidavit of his
attorney Sh. Jitender Kumar Bansal  along with the documents special
power of attorney  (Ex.CW1/A), true copy of registration certificate
(Ex. CW1/B)  , true copy of policy (Ex. CW1/C) , true copy of the
survey report (Ex. CW1/D) , true copy of  letter dated 17.11.2011 (Ex.
CW1/E) , true copy of letters dated 17.12.2011 , 20.01.2012 ,
09.03.2012 , 09.4.2012,23.04.2012 (Ex. CW 1/F), true copy of letter
dated 30.01.2012  and 23.04.2012 (Ex CW1/G) .

4.      In support of reply, OP filed affidavit of N. C. Singhal
(Deputy Manager) and Sh. Dheeraj Sood (Surveyor)  along with documents
copy of policy (Ex. R-1),  , copy of survey report (Ex. R-2) , Copy of
DL verification report (Ex. R-3) , copy of repudiation letter (Ex.
R-4)  , copy of reply dated 26.10.2012 ( Ex. R-5).

5.     Heard both the parties and considered the evidence laid by the
parties along with their written arguments and perused file.  In this
case the points to be considered are as under :

(i)                Whether complainant is a consumer?

(ii)             Where there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party?

(iii)           Relief.

6.     As admitted by the OP vehicle of the complainant was insured
with OP hence admittedly complainant is a consumer.

7.     In this matter, OP repudiated the claim of the complainant
vide letter dated 17.07.2012 on  the ground that “  the driver was not
holding a valid and effective license  to drive the insured vehicle at
the time of accident”. Complainant in his affidavit  deposed that the
driver of the insured vehicle was having  valid driving license  on
the date of the accident .  As per perusal of the copy of driving
license of the driver , it is evident that driving license of the
driver Ashok Singh (Ex. C-1) he   was allowed     to drive  HGV (Heavy
Goods Vehicle )  w.e.f. 12.08.2010  by Registration Authority DTO vide
endorsement no. 134/2010  dated 12.08.2010.   While OP filed affidavit
of Sh. Dheeraj Sood , Surveyor of the OP  wherein he deposed that  he
visited the office of DTO, Ranchi to verify the driving license of Sh.
Ashok  Singh and  taken the report duly issued by the Authority as per
the report  dated 21.03.2012 by the DTO the license was issued on
28.06.2008 for LMV and it was renewed from 28.06.2008 to 27.06.2011.
It is pertinent to mention herein that   in this report by DTO  it was
not denied the endorsement no. 134/2010 dated 12.08.2010  where
through  driver Ashok Singh  was allowed to drive HGV vehicle w.e.f.
12-05-2010 , therefore,    the deposition of affidavit by Dhiraj Sood
cannot be relied.  It is also pertinent to mention herein that   the
report dated 21.03.2012   given by the DTO , Ranchi was not proved by
the evidence of concerned authority as he was not summoned in evidence
nor in his affidavit was filed by OP.

8.     Looking to the above facts and circumstances we are of the
opinion the driver of the Ashok Kumar  was having a valid driving
license to drive HGV at the time of accident and repudiation of the
claim by the OP is not justified.    Hence repudiation of
complainant’s claim is unjustified and it is proved that there is
deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.      It is established law that surveyor report submitted by the OP
is a important document and as per surveyor report Ex. R2 surveyor
assessed a loss of Rs. 7,05,797/- in the insured vehicle of the
complainant. Therefore, this assessed loss  of Rs. 7,05,797/-  is
proved. As this is a case of collision between the two vehicle,
therefore, as per the established law and  GIC guidelines claim  may
be allowed on non standard basis  i.e. 75 % of the loss assessed.
Hence we direct OP as under:-

1.     To pay a sum of Rs. 5,29,348/- i.e. 75% of the assessed loss of
Rs. 7,05,797/- to the complainant vehicle  to indemnify the
complainant    against the loss of vehicle on non standard basis.

2.     To pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment to
the complainant.

3.     To pay a cost of Rs. 8000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

10.                          The above amount shall be payable within
a period of 3 months from the date of order failing which simple
interest of 18 % p.a. will be payable on the above amount.

11.                          Copy of the order be made available to
the parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on ………….