BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 182 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 1.9.2016.
Date of Decision: 11.3.2019.
Pawan Kumar son of Shri Ishwar Singh, resident of village Kheri Sanwal, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, near Bus Stand - Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri R. L. Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Mahipal Singh Tanwar, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he was owner of a Motor Cycle bearing registration no. HR19F/6168 and the same was got insured with the OP. It is further alleged that the above said vehicle met with an accident on 6.10.2015 due to sudden collusion with Nil Cow and badly damaged. The OP was informed, the surveyor of OP inspected the vehicle and submitted his report with the OP alongwith photographs of the damaged motor cycle. It is further alleged that the complainant has got repaired the motor cycle from Balaji Auto Mobiles, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri by paying Rs.39,424/- and to submit his claim with the OP complete in all respect, but the OP vide letter dated 7.1.2016 informed that the claim has been repudiated by the authorized officer on the ground that the driver of the motorcycle was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident to drive the said vehicle. It is further alleged that the complainant was having a valid driving license at the time of accident and Bhupender brother of the complainant was having license i.e. Non-Tr. Valid upto 6.12.2030 and Tr. Valid upto 14.9.2017, but the OP has intentionally and deliberately repudiated the claim. It is further alleged that repudiation of claim of the complainant is against law and facts, arbitrary and not binding on his rights. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the OP filed the contested written statement and contested the case of the complainant only on the sole ground that the driver of motor cycle Bhupender Singh was not holding a valid driving license to drive the motor cycle on the date of accident, so, vide letter dated 7.1.2016 his claim file was closed as “No Claim”. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C5 in evidence and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record the documents as annexure R1 to R8 & closed the evidence.
5. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the driver of the motor cycle was having valid DL and placed his reliance upon case law titled as Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs UIIC, Civil Appeal No. 240 of 2017, decided by Hon’ble Supreme court of India, UIIC Vs. Rahul & Anr., FAO No.2311 of 2016, decided on 7.12.2017 by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, UIIC Vs. Dharampal and Ors., FAO No.2673 of 2015, decided on 4.12.2017 by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and UP State Road Transport corporation, FAO No.1730 of 2018, decided on 17.8.2018 by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.
7. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the driver of motor cycle Bhupender Singh was not holding a valid driving license to drive the motor cycle on the date of accident, so, vide letter dated 7.1.2016 his claim file was closed as “No Claim”. He placed his reliance upon the case law OIC Vs Zaharulnisha & others, Civil Appeal No.3055 of 2008, decided on 29.4.2008 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and NIC Vs Kusum Rai & others, Civil Appeal No.1731 of 2006, decided on 24.3.2006 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
8. We have given a considerable thought to the arguments of the learned counsel for the OP and in our view the arguments of counsel for OP has no substance at all. The arguments of ld. counsel for the OP that the driver of the motor cycle Bhupender Singh was not holding a valid driving license. This plea of Ld. Counsel for the OP is not tenable, because it is clear from the copy of DL annexure C4, that the DL of Bhupender was valid for both Non-Tr. Valid upto 6.12.2030 and Tr. Valid upto 14.9.2017 and hence, there is no need of specific endorsement on the DL when he was competent to drive both class of vehicles i.e. Transport vehicles and Non-Transport vehicles on the date of accident. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that “no separate endorsement on license is required to drive transport vehicle or light motor vehicle class, gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg-License held valid-Order of Tribunal absolving insurance company set aside”. The case law relied upon by ld. counsel for the OP are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the Motor Cycle in question was met with an accident and suffered damages. It is also admitted that the complainant has incurred Rs.39,424/- on the repair of the insured vehicle. This fact is also clear from the perusal of annexure C2 that the complainant has spent Rs.39,424/- on the repairs of the motor cycle in question. Thus, non-payment genuine claim of the complainant by the OP amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
9. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to:-
i. To pay Rs.39,424/- (Thirty nine thousand four hundred twenty four only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
- pay Rs.6000/- (Six thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, loss of business and punitive damages, due to deficiency in service on the part of OP.
iii. To pay Rs.5500/- (Five thousand five hundred only) as counsel fee as well as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 11.03.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 11.03.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
