ORDER                                                                                                                                 Dated: 

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. The complainant filed this complaint on 03-09-02014 and alleged that he is authorized representative of M/s Maharashtra Freight Carrier (P) Ltd. Complainant further alleged that the OP had insured  vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 14 GB 5510 vide insurance policy no. 360500/31/12/6300004851 valid from 31-10-2012 to 30-10-2013 for an insured sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. He further alleged that on 19.04.2013 the truck has met with an accidentat By-pass LaxmiPura, Bhilwara, Rajasthandue to the negligence of another truck bearing no. RJ 06 GA 6450 in which driver of the insured truck died. In this  regardan FIR no. 206/2013 U/s 279/304-A IPC was registered in P.S. Partap Nagar, Distt. Bhilwara, Rajasthan on 20.4.2013.   The insured vehicle was driven by the deceased having valid and effective driving license. Complainant had applied for claim of the vehicle with OP and surveyor appointed by the OP declared the vehicle as total loss.  Later on complainant sold the salvage of the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to Sh. Nadeem Ahmed and remaining amount of the claim was Rs. 4,50,000/-.   Despite so many letters and reminders OP denied the complainant’s claim hence it is prayed that  OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest and compensation for mental pain harassment and cost of litigation.
2.  In reply, OP did not deny the insurance of the complainant’s vehicle and its validity and denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint. OP further stated that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Sh. Manjeet Singh whose driving license issued from Farukabad Authority in 2009 was untrue and complainant is not a consumer. OP further stated that there was a violation of the terms andconditions of the insurance policy and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
3. The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his complaint the complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents EX. CW-1/1 to Ex CW-1/9. In support of reply OP filed affidavit of J.S. Aulakh (Divisional Manager) and additional evidence of Sh. R. V. Singh (Investigator)  . Both the parties filed their written arguments

4.We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

( c) Relief?

5. In this case, OP did not deny the issuance of  insurance policy Ex. OPW1/2 wherein complainant vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-.  As per the terms of policy, OP is liable to indemnifythe insured for the loss suffered by him. It is established legal position that contract of insurance generally belongs to the general category of contract of indemnity.  Person who take insurance policy who cover envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose.  Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss , not intended to generate profit.     Therefore, in this case complainant is a “consumer”.

6. The OP has failed to prove that  license of the deceased driver Manjeet Singh issued from Farukabad Authority in 2009 was fake.   It is pertinent to mention here in that OP has failed to submit the verification report regarding driving license of the deceased driver despite so many opportunities given to him.   In this case report submitted by the investigator Ex. OPW2/1   clarify that he check the record and found that “Driving License is not issued” cannot be relied in absence of the verification report from the holder of its record i.e. RTO Kanpur Authority. In these above mentioned facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that repudiation of the complainant’s claim by the OP on 19.8.2014  (annexure C)  is not justified which is suffice  to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP. As the complainant has sold the salvage of the insured vehicle  for Rs 1,50,000/- to Nadeem Ahmed vide sale letter Ex. Annexure C-6 ,  therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs should be deducted from the  insured amount of the vehicle and we direct the OP as under:-

1. To pay a sum Rs 4,50,000/-  against the insured sum of the vehicle to the complainant
2. To pay a sum Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant .
3. To pay  a sum Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

7. The above amount  is payable within 30 days from the order failing which OP has to pay an interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this ……………..