Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/878/2011

Amarjeet Singh S/o Bhagwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Avinash Chadha

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 878 of 2011

                                                                                    Date of institution: 18.08.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 23.08.2016.

Amarjeet Singh aged about 40 years son of Shri Bhagwant Singh, resident of House No. 442/126, Ward No.2, Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                       …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office at Near Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                            …Respondent.                                       

 

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

            SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:    Sh. Avinash Chadha, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                 Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent.             

 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is registered owner of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02X-8412 which was insured with the Op Insurance Company vide insurance policy bearing No. 35100731106202294853 for a sum insured of Rs. 39358/- valid from 23.02.2011 to 22.02.2012. During the currency of insurance policy the motorcycle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 08.05.2011 when relative of the complainant namely Kuldeep Singh was driving the same. The said Kuldeep Singh was having a valid driving license bearing No. HR-5819820188185 dated 12.12.1982. The complainant immediately lodged the claim with the OP Insurance Company and a Engineer Sumit Goyal was appointed who inspect the motorcycle in question and submitted his report dated 25.05.2011. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide its letter dated 21.06.2011 by the OP Insurance Company on the ground that driving license of driver Kuldeep Singh was not valid driving license as he was having a license for LMV-GV(TR), 3 W.Cab. (TR) only and not for motorcycle and also taken the plea that there was a delay in lodging the claim with the OP Insurance Company. Lastly, it has been prayed that genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated on false ground by the Op Insurance Company. Hence this complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of damages of the motorcycle alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.  

3.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite availing so many opportunities, so, the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 02.06.2016.

 4.                    Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit it has been admitted that complainant had purchased comprehensively insurance policy being the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02X-8412 vide policy No. 35100731106202294853 for a sum insured of Rs. 39358/- valid from 23.02.2011 to 22.02.2012. It has been further mentioned that the OP Insurance Company was informed on 14.05.2011 that motorcycle in question met with an accident. On receiving the intimation, the OP Insurance Company immediately registered the claim of the complainant and a surveyor Er. Sumit Goel, Mechanical Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed who submitted his report dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure R-4) assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 11498/- subject to terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The complainant supplied documents alongwith copy of driving license bearing No. HR-5819820188185 dated 12.12.1982 in the name of Kuldeep Singh (Annexure R-5). On processing the claim file, it was found that the driving license was for only LMV-GV(TR), three. W Cab (T.R.) only and not for motorcycle. Meaning thereby that at the time of alleged accident said Kuldeep Singh was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive two wheeler. Hence, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP Insurance Company. So, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     In support of its version counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Sumit Goel, Mechanical Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor as Annexure RW/A and affidavit of Sh. Parveen Arora AO NIC as RW/B and photo copies of documents such as repudiation letter dated 21.06.2011 as Annexure R-1, copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-2, copy of intimation letter dated 14.05.2011 as Annexure R-3, copy of surveyor report dated 25.05.2011 as Annexure R-4, copy of driving license as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant was not the registered owner of the motorcycle in question and the same was not met with an accident during the currency of insurance policy in question. it is also not disputed that the surveyor and loss assessor was deputed who submitted his report dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure R-4) assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 11498/-. It is also not disputed that driver Kuldeep Singh was driving the motorcycle at the time of alleged accident. The plea of the OP Insurance Company is that driver Kuldeep Singh was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the motor cycle i.e. two wheeler at the time of alleged accident as he was having only driving license to drive the LMV –GU(TR) and 3 wheeler cab (TR)  which is evident from the photo copy of driving license  bearing No. HR5819820188185 (Annexure R-5) itself, hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated being violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company referred the case law titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Jaya Rajindra Nanda, 2002(1) CLT Page 220 National Commission in which it has been held that by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that if one has a driving license for medium goods vehicle, it automatically entitles him to drive a light motor vehicle. Similarly, if a person have a LMV driving license then he can drive the motorcycle i.e. two wheeler. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company, whereas the driver Kuldeep Singh was having valid driving license at the time of accident. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that when a person can drive LMV Vehicle and 3 wheeler then there is presumption that he can also drive the motorcycle. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op Insurance Company as from the perusal of copy of driving license Annexure R-5, it is clearly evident that complainant was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the LMV and 3 wheeler vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Moreover, the license in question was issued in the name of the driver Kuldeep Singh in the year 1982. Meaning thereby that driver Kuldeep Singh was having so vast experience to drive the vehicles for more than 29 years and almost mechanism of the vehicles are the same. Further, the OP Insurance Company has also not placed on file any report from the Licensing Authority to prove that the license in question was issued directly for the LMV/ 3 wheelers in the year 1982. It may be that license be issued initially for motorcycle/scooter etc. and later on some class of vehicle may be added in that license by the Licensing Authority. In the absence of any report from the Licensing Authority, it cannot be held that driver Kuldeep Singh was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. Moreover, it is settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Almendu Deen Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company, 2010(2) CPJ Page No.9 that even if there was violation of conditions of the insurance policy regarding driving of the vehicle by duly licensed driver, then also the complainant is entitled to get compensation on non standard basis and the same view has also been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Narayan Parsad Pathak, 2006(2) CPJ page 194 National Commission wherein guidelines by the insurance company about settling the claim on non standard basis were considered. As per guidelines (iii) in case of breach of warranty condition of the policy including limitation as to use percentage of settlement was 75% of the admissible claim. The above noted proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as National Commission is fully applicable to the present case as well. there was breach of condition of the policy as the driver Kuldeep Singh was having driving license to drive LMV whereas the insured vehicle of the complainant was motorcycle. Therefore, the claim of the complainant could not be rejected in toto but should have been settled by the insurance company on non standard basis as per guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation.

10.                   The surveyor deputed by the Op Insurance Company assessed the net liability of Rs. 11498.50 i.e. Rs. 11500/- as it is evident from the copy of report (Annexure R-4). The complainant has alleged that he has spent Rs. 25000/- on account of damage to the motorcycle. However, the proposition of the law is well settled that the report of the surveyor has significant evidently value unless it is prove otherwise. Non consideration of the surveyor report results in serious miscarriage of justice.

11.                   So, as a sequel of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to make the payment of 75% of Rs. 11500/- i.e. Rs. 8625/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs. 2500/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment was well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.   Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 23.08.2016.           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                   

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER.