Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/29/2018

Bijender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Sharma

08 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                             Complaint Case No. : 29 of 2018

                                                             Date of Institution   :  20.02.2018

                                                             Date of decision:      : 08.02.2024

 

Bijender Kumar son of Sh. Amar Singh R/o village Mandholi Kalan, Tehsil Loharu District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

                                                    Versus.

1. National Insurance Company Ltd. having its branch office at Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Branch Manger.

 

2. Maruti Insurance  Broking Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Jagmohan Motors, Tosham, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms.  Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. M.L. Sardana, Advocate for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Satender Ghanghas, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant being owner of a vehicle Maruti Alto-800 LXI having regn. No.HR-18-C/6720 which was insured from OPs vide policy no.35101031166138998683 w.e.f. 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017.  On 28.05.2017, complainant alongwith his nephew Mr. Pardeep son of Sh. Balwant Singh were going to Ragha Badi, Rajgarh (Rajasthan) in the said vehicle, driven by Mr. Pardeep and complainant was present in the vehicle.  It is stated that all of sudden stray cattle (neel cow) came in front of the vehicle and due to heavy impact, vehicle of complainant turned turtle and became completely damaged. As per complainant, OPs were informed, surveyor inspected the vehicle.  Claim was submitted by complainant with OPs but it was not released despite the fact that the vehicle was not repairable.  It has submitted that the demand of Rs.20,000/- by OP No.2 towards parking charges was not justified. So legal notice dated 25.01.2018 was got served upon the OPs but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops and to issued directions against the OPs to pay Rs.3,02,593/- alongwith interest @ 18% upto date, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards negligence on the part of OPs alongwith interest @ 18%, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.  Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed their separate written statements.

3.                 OP No.1 in its WS raised preliminary objections qua suppression of material facts, maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and jurisdiction.  On merits, it is submitted that upon receiving intimation of loss to the vehicle, Sh. Raj Kumar, Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss in the vehicle who vide his report dated 22.07.2017 assessed loss to the vehicle as Rs.2,29,000/- on Net of Salvage basis without R.C.  He again submitted his final survey report dated 08.11.2017.  On a clarification sought by Sh. Pardeep K.Gupta, Surveyor from Licensing Authority, Loharu, qua Driving License of Mr. Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh.Balwant Singh, it was made out that he was authorized to drive Tractor, 3W-MT, MCWG only and not for Car/Jeep. As such, the driver was not competent to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant point of time and thus claim of complainant was closed vide letter dated 22.03.2018. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                 OP No.2 taken some formal preliminary objections and stated that complainant brought the vehicle in accidental condition on 19.06.2017, OP No.1 insurance company was informed who on investigation found DL of driver as invalid and thus claim of complainant was repudiated. Prior to this, the answering OP asked the complainant for getting repaired the vehicle at his own cost but he refused for the same and took away his vehicle on 30.06.2017 from the workshop of this OP. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                 In evidence of complainant, his evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 were tendered and then closed the evidence.

6.                 On the other side, OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajender Singh Sharma, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9 and then closed the evidence.

7.                 OP No.2 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Mr. Jai Bhagwan Rohila, Personal Manager as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 to Annexure R2/2.

8.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Written arguments alongwith case laws on behalf of OP No.1 filed.

9.                 Learned counsel for complainant has argued that on the day of accident, the driver of the accidental car was having a valid and effective license to the drive such vehicle.  To prove this fact, he has drawn our attention towards DL of driver Mr. Pradeep (Annexure C-6) which reveals that he was authorized to drive vehicle of LMV category.  As such, the counsel has vehemently argued that repudiation of the claim on the ground of invalid driving license is a gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on their part and thus prayed for allow of the complaint as prayed for.

10.               On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 denied the said factum rather pressed that repudiation was legal as on verification from concerned Licensing Authority, the DL was not valid for driving the car.  However, learned counsel for OP No.1 has placed reliance on a case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled H.C. Saxena Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 1(2012)CPJ 420 (NC) wherein it has observed that  Due to flood vehicle got damaged-Surveyor appointed – Claim repudiated-Forum allowed complaint-State Commission modified reliefs-Hence, revision-Contention, Forum committed grave error in discarding assessment done by the official surveyor-Accepted-Report of Surveyor appointed under the provisions of law is an important document and cannot be brushed aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary -Order of State Commission upheld.

11.               Perusal of copy of driving license pertaining to Mr. Pradeep (Annexure C-6) on file reveals that he was authorized to drive vehicles of LMV category (Light Motor Vehicle) issued on 26.05.2011 and valid upto 25.05.2031. It is pertinent to mention here that vehicles like jeep and motor cars fall under the Light Motor Vehicle category and thus we are of confirmed opinion that on the date of accident i.e. 28.05.2017, the driver of accidental car was having a valid and effective driving license to drive such car.  Accordingly, it is observed that the OPs wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. Perusal of insurance policy reveals that the vehicle was having IDV for Rs.3,02,595/-  and policy period was from 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017.  Perusal of surveyor’s report (Annexure R-1 & R-2)  mention that the vehicle was totally damaged and was not repairable and has given a detailed report and loss to be settled with the insured has been shown to Rs.3,00,000/-.  As such, the complaint is allowed and OPs No.1 & 2, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of communication of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization subject to completing formalities viz. letter of Subrogation & affidavit etc. qua transfer of vehicle in question and salvage in favour of OP Insurance Company by the complainant within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) towards litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default.  

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:08.02.2024.