Punjab

Sangrur

CC/585/2014

Aslam Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri H.S. Cheema

03 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    585

                                                Instituted on:      17.10.2014

                                                Decided on:       03.03.2015

 

 

Aslam Khan son of Shri Lal Deen, resident of Mata Rani Mohalla, Ward No.7, House No.47, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Near Kaula Park, Opposite HDFC Bank, Sangrur.

2.             National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office XV, National Insurance Building, 1^st Floor, 8, India Exchange Palace, Kolkata-700 001.

3.             Megma Fincorp Ltd. SCO No.75, Phase No.9, Mohali through its Manager.

4.             Magma Finance Company, Near Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chowk, Sangrur through its Prop.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri H.S.Cheema, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

For OPs No.3 & 4      :       Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Aslam Khan, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OPs by getting his Mohindra Balero vehicle bearing registration number PB-13-AB-0921 insured vide policy number 15010031116300049721 for the period from 25.1.2012 to 24.1.2013.  The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 12.4.2012 and the information of which was given to the OP number 1 on 13.4.2012, who deputed surveyor Shri Bhaduar Singh and Shri Rajesh Kumar and both the surveyors visited and took photographs of the damaged vehicle and charged Rs.1500/- from the complainant, but did not issue any receipt.  Thereafter Shri V.K. Kohli, Surveyor and Loss Assessor visited the complainant, who inspected the vehicle and obtained documents from the complainant and instructed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired from Patiala. The surveyor Mr. V.K. Kohli also charged Rs.2520/- as survey fee from the complainant.  The vehicle in question was got repaired by the complainant from Punjab Denting Painting and Service Station, Dhuri as per the assurance of the surveyor.  Thereafter the complainant filed the claim and submitted all the requisite bills to OPs, but nothing happened despite sending of reminders dated 11.2.2013 and 12.3.2013. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 14.5.2013 upon the OPs. It is further averred in the complaint that the complainant earlier also filed a complaint number 24 dated 8.1.2014 which was decided on 7.7.2014 whereby it was ordered by the Forum to the complainant to submit the claim with the OPs number 1 and 2 along with all the relevant documents for settlement of the claim.  Thereafter Ops number 1 and 2 shall settle the claim within a period of 30 days and intimate their decision to the complainant by registered post. It was also ordered that if the complainant feels unsatisfied with the decision of OPs number 1 and 2, then the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum again for redressal of his grievance, if he so desired.  It is further averred in the complaint that on 7.8.2014 the complainant submitted all the documents to OP number 1, but OP number 1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 25.9.2014.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to make the payment of Rs.1,12,606/- to the complainant along with interest and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, it is stated that the vehicle in question was insured with OP number 2 for the period from 25.1.2012 to 24.1.2013 subject to the terms and conditions for Rs.4,96,850/- only and the policy as well as its terms and conditions were immediately supplied to the insured. It is admitted that the OPs appointed Shri Rajesh Kumar surveyor, who received Rs.1350/- from the complainant and further it is admitted that Shri VK Kohli, Surveyor received Rs.2520/- from the complainant.  It is stated further that after receiving the intimation, Shri V. K. Kohli assessed the loss at Rs.32,705/- after deducting depreciation @ 50% on rubber parts and 10% on metal parts.  In addition to this, he also deducted 50% on IMT 23, Rs.1500/- regarding policy clause and assessed Rs.800/- as salvage value.   As regards bumper and head light etc. the surveyor assessed nothing as the same were not covered under the policy.  Therefore, the said surveyor finally assessed Rs.32,705/- as loss and submitted his report dated 18.4.2012.  It is further averred in the reply that the driving license of Gurpreet Singh driver of the vehicle in question was not valid and effective at the time of accident.  As such, OP number 2 after carefully examining the entire file, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and accordingly the complainant was informed vide letter dated 25.10.2012.  Again as per the orders of the Hon’ble Forum, the OP number 1 decided the matter on 19.9.2014.  It is stated further that the driving license of the driver was not in order to drive the commercial vehicle, therefore, the OP rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 3 and 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unnecessary litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 12.4.2012 and intimation of accident was given to OP number 1 and 2, who deputed the surveyor.  It is also stated that the vehicle in question was got financed from OPs number 3 and 4.  The other allegations in the complaint have been denied. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of reminder, Ex.C-2 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-5 copy of policy, Ex.C-6 application dated 19.12.2012, Ex.C-7 copy of application dated 11.12.2013, Ex.C-8 copy of letter dated 14.2.2013, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-11 postal receipts, Ex.C-12 application dated 12.3.2013, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-15 copies of bills, Ex.C-16 survey fee  bill, Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-21 copies of bills, Ex.C-22 copy of certificate, Ex.C-23 copy of form CR, Ex.C-24 copy of gate pass, Ex.C-25 form number 22, Ex.C-26 form number 21, Ex.C-27 copy of DL, Ex.C-28 affidavit, Ex.C-29 copy of letter, Ex.C-30 certified copy of  order dated 7.7.2014, Ex.C-31 copy of repudiation letter and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/2 copies of survey reports, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of claim note, Ex.OP1&2/4 affidavit,  Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of policy, Ex.OP1&2/6 terms and conditions, Ex.OP1&2/7 copy of no claim bonus, Ex.OP1&2/8 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 3 and 4 has produced Ex.OP3&4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question of the complainant was insured with OP number 1 and 2 for Rs.4,96,850/- for the period from 25.1.2012 to 24.1.2013, as is evident from the copy of policy, Ex.C-5.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on the night of 12.4.2012 and the information of which was given to Op number 1. It is also not in dispute that the Op number 1 deputed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal and Shri V.K. Kohli, surveyors, who submitted their report, which are also on the record. Ex.OP1&2/1 is a copy of the survey report submitted by Shri Rajesh Aggarwal and Ex.Op1&2/2 is the report of Er. V.K.Kohli,  whereby he assessed the net payable loss to the tune of Rs.32,705/-.

 

7.             In the present case, the main question for determination before us is whether the claim is payable or not, as the OPs number 1 and 2 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle i.e. Shri Gurpreet Singh was not having a valid and effective driving license,  as he was holding a license for LMV, whereas the license should be for LGV, as admittedly the vehicle was LGV and not LMV.   The complainant has also produced on record the copy of driving license of Shri Gurpreet Singh Sekhon, which is on record as Ex.C-27, but a bare perusal of it clearly reveals that the same is valid for ‘M.Cycle. L.M.V only’, it no where describes that the license is also valid for LGV.  The learned counsel for Ops number 1 and 2 has contended that the driver was required to have an endorsement from the District Transport Officer entitling him to drive transport vehicle and has further contended that since the driver Gurpreet Singh was not having any endorsement on his license regarding authorisation for transport vehicles, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. Further it is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as the claim is payable only according to the terms and conditions.  The learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has cited Oriental Insurance Company and others versus Seema III (2014) CPJ 112(NC), wherein it has been held by the Hn’ble National Commission that a person who is holding licnese to drive light motor vehicle, does require requisite endorsement from licensing authority to enable him to drive transport vehicle, including light commercial vehicle.  It is further held that in the absence of such endorsement, he cannot be stated to be in possession of valid and effective driving license fro driving transport vehicle.  In the present case also, it is no doubt true that the driver, Shri Gurpreet Singh was having a license for LMV, but the same was not having any endorsement from the licensing authority to enable him to drive transport vehicle.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not get the endorsement on the driving license from the licensing authority.  In the circumstances, the complainant is himself responsible for handing over the insured vehicle to such a person, who is not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle.  As such, we feel that the Ops number 1 and 2 are not liable to pay any claim and the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OPs.

8.             Further the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops number 3 and 4 as Ops number 3 and 4 are the financers who had financed the vehicle of the complainant.  As such, we feel that the complaint against Ops number 3 and 4 is also liable to be dismissed.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member