Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 217.
Instituted on : 10.04.2017.
Decided on : 06.11.2018.
Rinku son of Dharamvir r/o House No.40, VPO Kharawar Distt. Rohtak. Age 35 yrs. Ph. No.9034460688.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Nishan Showroom Delhi-Hissar Bye Pass, near Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak, through its Manager.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, office at 5th Floor Tower Stelear T Park, C.25, Sector-62, Noida, UP.
- HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., 6th Floor Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(East) Mumbai 4000059 through Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.D.S.Attri, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Abhijeet Bajad, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of the car bearing registration No.HR-12Z-8184 which was duly insured with respondent insurance company vide policy No.2311201358778000000 for the period 31.03.2016 to 29.03.2017 and IDV of the vehicle was Rs.420429/-. That aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 16.12.2016 and suffered total loss to the said vehicle. DD No.23 dat. 17.11.2016 was registered. That complainant intimated to respondents about the damage suffered to the said vehicle of complainant and submitted all the required documents for settlement of claim. That complainant requested the opposite parties time and again to settle the genuine claim but respondents have not settled the claim till date. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is therefore, prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim of Rs.420429/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that OP no.1 is having tie up with the insurance company i.e. HDFC ERGO but the claim responsibility is of the insurance company and not of the agency. That the complainant informed the answering opposite party about the accident on 17.12.2016 and he was asked to submit the documents but complainant failed to produce the same and also refused to repair his vehicle. That OP No.1 is not liable to pay the claim as it is not authorized by IRDA. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed against the answering opposite party No.1.
3. OP No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the complainant himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident but during the verification of the DL, it was found that the complainant was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident, which is against the policy terms and conditions. That the DL of the complainant authorizes him to drive the Motor cycle with gear and tractor only, whereas the vehicle in question is LMV(Car). Therefore, the complainant was not having the valid license to drive the LMV vehicle. As such the claim of the complainant was made as ‘No Claim” and the same was duly conveyed to the complainant through letter dated 03.01.2017. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has stated that reply already filed on behalf of OP no.1 be read in evidence as affidavit and tendered document Ex.RW3/A and has closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/7 and has closed his evidence
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone the material aspects of the case carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant has not impleaded the financer as necessary party. Moreover, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident as he was having licene of Motor cycle with Gear and tractor only and he was driving the car(LMV). We have perused the copy of DL Ex.C4 which is for M.R. with Gear, Tractor only. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the driver holding a licence of Tractor can also drive LMV(Car) and has placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana high Court cited in 2013(2)PLR 376 titled as Gursharan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby it is held that: “A tractor is a Light Motor Vehicle and a car or jeep is also a Light Motor vehicle. If the driver holding a driving license for LMV such as a Car or a jeep, can also drive a tractor”.
8. The bare perusal of the aforesaid law itself shows that the driver holding a driving license for LMV can drive a tractor but in the present case the driver was only having driving license for Motorcycle with gear and tractor and there was no separate endorsement for driving LMV. Hence the driving lincese of the driver does not cover other vehicles e.g. Jeep, Car etc. As such the law cited above by ld. counsel for the complainant is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case being different mechanism.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.12.2018.
......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
