Haryana

Ambala

CC/250/2014

NAND KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA CO. - Opp.Party(s)

YADVINDER GUPTA

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No. 250 of 2014

                                                        Date of instt:  04.09.2014.

                                                        Date of decision: 10.08.2017

                                        

Nand Kumar son of Sh.Rameshwar resident of House No.298, Sunder Nagar, near DRM Office, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala.

 

                                        ...Complainant.

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited Civil Lines,Arya Chowk, above OBC Bank, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present: -  Sh. Yadvinder Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. Niklesh Bhagi, Adv. for OP.

 

 

ORDER:

 

                The facts of the present case are that the complainant is running business under the name and style Shekhr Oil Carrier and is registered owner of Oil Tanker bearing registration No.HR-55-8044. He got the said oil tanker insured with Op vide policy No.35350231130100001935 having validity from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014.On 12.10.2013 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Depot Ambala Cantt. loaded product HSD-11000 KL in the above said canter vide invoice No.665659395 to be delivered at Hindustan Construction Co.Limited Sainj, Post Office, Sainj, Kullu (H.P.) but the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.10.2013. The complainant lodged claim regarding damage of vehicle and product to the OP and also submitted all requisite documents including the driving licence of driver Krishna Mahto, however, his claims were registered with respect to two policies Nos. 35350236131100000016 & 35350231130100001935. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of issuane of the insurance policy. The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2014 on the ground that the driver was not having effective and valid licence at the time of accident despite the fact that the driving licence was valid and effective and regarding this the complainant has filed separate complaint before this Forum. The OP has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant despite application for reconsideration of the claim, therefore, he got served legal notice upon it but to no avail. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply to the complaint wherein it has been submitted that the insured vehicle was a goods tanker vehicle and at the time of alleged accident on 15.10.2013, the driver Krishna Mahto was not having valid and effective driving licence as it was valid upto 23.12.2011, as reported by DTO Ranchi dated 28.04.2014 and said report was made after the report dated 04.03.2014. The vehicle in question was being plied by violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 07.07.2014. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavits Annexure R1 to Annexure R3 and documents Annexure R4 to Annexure R33.

3.                     Only dispute in this case was with regard to validity of the licence on the date of accident which took place on 15.10.2013. Admittedly, the policy in question was valid w.e.f 20.06.2013 to 19.06.2014 and the insured declared value was for Rs.6 lacs. The complainant has placed on file driving licence (Annexure C2) bearing No.JH-01/2008/0039798 issued in the name of Krishna Mahto. Said driving licence was issued on 24.12.2008 and for transport vehicle it was valid upto 23.12.2014 and it was valid for non-transport vehicle till 23.12.2016.  There are also particular with regard to endorsement for renewal for transport vehicle is mentioned as 24.12.2011. Perusal of the driving licence reveals that it is not a manual licence rather it is a chip based licence and on the body of the licence word “RENEWAL” is mentioned. The complainant has also placed on record report Annexure C3 made by DTO, Ranchi wherein the validity of the driving licence for transport vehicle was mentioned as 23.12.2011  and on the bottom of the said document renewal date 23.12.2011 is also mentioned  and the same date is also mentioned in Annexure C2. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of the information Annexure C8 given by concerned licence authority on 30.04.2015 to Sh.R.P.Kakkar during investigation wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the licence was renewed from 23.12.2011 to 23.11.2014 and same was again renewed from 28.04.2015 to 27.04.2018. On the other hand, the OP has placed on record Annexure R6 wherein the validity of the licence in question is 23.12.2011 but in Annexure R5 it has nowhere mentioned about the particulars of the renewal. If the investigator would have sought the complete information with regard to the renewal date of the licence then the licencing authority would have certainly provided the same to him. Moreover, as per Annexure C8, it is also issued in the name of Sh.R.P.Kakker, the OP has not challenged the genuineness of the document orally or documentary.

                 In view of above discussion, it is clear that that the license of driver Krishna Mehto was valid at the time of accident and the licensing authority had renewed the same for the period from 23.12.2011 to 23.11.2014. The case law titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajneesh Tondon 2014 (2) CLT page 273  (NC), New India Assurance Company Vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal IV (2009) CPJ 14 (SC), Ajay Navanath Sontakke Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2017 (1) CLT page 270 (NC), Alok Waghe Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 2013 (4) CLT page 291 (NC), Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shivakumara S 2014 (2) CLT page 87 (NC) and M/s MRH Associates Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others 2015 (1) CLT 498 relied upon by learned counsel for the Op are not identical to the facts of the present case and the same are not helpful to the case of the OP.

4.             Counsel for the complainant also raised another contention that if the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence even then the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated by the insurance company because the incident had occurred as steering got free and this fact has also been recorded by the police in DDR and verified by the surveyor in his report Annexure R32 which makes it suffice clear that the incident was occurred due to mechanical defect and not due to the fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The case law titled as Jitender Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 2003 (2) Apex Court Judgments 506 (SC)  relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the case in hand because in this judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Insurance Claim- Damage to the vehicle due to mechanical defect- No fault of driver-Insurance Company cannot repudiate a claim made by owner of vehicle solely on ground that driver of vehicle did not hold a valid licence-Insurance Company cannot repudiate claim of appellant.

5.                     Keeping in view the above discussion as well as the law laid down in case titled as Jitender Kumar (supra) the present complaint deserves acceptance. Accordingly, present complaint is allowed with cost which is assessed at Rs.5,000/-. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant, as assessed by the surveyor in Annexure R32 on account of damage to the vehicle, alognwith interest @ 9 %  per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization of the amount. Order be complied within thirty days on receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

 

Announced on: 10.08.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                               

                            

                                                                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER