BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:303 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 16.05.2013.
Date of Decision:05.04.2017
Gorav son of Sh. Liladhar, resident of village Umravat, P.O. Kaunt, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd., Circular Road, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Sh. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant is the owner of a motorcycle bearing No. HR-16H-5251 and also having valid driving licence & the same was valid upto 10.08.2015. It is alleged that the motorcycle was duly insured with the OP insurance company and the complainant met with an accident. It is alleged that the complainant submitted all the required documents before OP for claim. It is alleged that the complainant had received a letter dated 14.09.2012 issued by OP regarding the claim of complainant’s motorcycle and OP raised objection that licence of complainant is for L.M.V. and he is not authorized to drive the motorcycle. It is alleged that after receiving of said letter complainant many times gave representation before OP and asked to pass the claim as complainant having valid licence to drive the L.M.V. but to no avail. The complainant also served legal notice dated 14.02.2013 on the OP but till today respondent neither pass the claim nor gave any reply. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint for claim.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the complainant was not having valid driving license to drive the same at the time of alleged accident. It is submitted that letter dated 14.09.2012 was sent to complainant that driving license of rider of motorcycle was for LMV and he was not authorized to driver two wheeler as per provision of Motor Vehicle act. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-15 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the motor cycle in question of the complainant was duly insured with the OP. The loss was caused to the motor cycle in a road accident and the complainant submitted the necessary documents to the OP for the settlement of his claim. He submitted that the OP illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver of the motor cycle i.e. the father of the complainant was not holding valid driving license. He submitted that the license is valid for LMV and the motor cycle is also fall in the LMV category.
7. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that after getting information from the complainant regarding the accident a surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss vide his report dated 01.06.2012 Annexure R-12 and assessed the loss at Rs. 11,949/- At the time of accident Liladhar driver was having the driving license authorized to drive LMV only and he was not authorized to drive two wheeler that is the insured motor cycle. Therefore, the said Liladhar driver was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the motor cycle in question. It amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP.
8. We have perused the record carefully. The main facts of the case are not in dispute. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident Liladhar driver of the motor cycle was having LMV license and not authorized to drive two wheeler i.e. motor cycle in question. Relying on the case law rendered in case of National Insurance Company Versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV 2008 CPJ 1 (SC), in case of violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the OP. We direct the OP to pay the 75 % of the loss assessed at Rs. 11,949/- by surveyor alongwith interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 05.04.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar)
Member.
