DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.214/2021

QUORUM:

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

By this judgement, this Commission would dispose of the complaint filed by the complainant against OP with respect to deficiency in service in rejecting his insurance claim despite a valid insurance policy of his vehicle.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he was having Ford, eco-sport, titanium car registered in his name, insured with OP for a period of 30.08.2020 to 29.08.2021, with a IDV of 7,50,000/-. On 01.12.2020, the car met with an accident and taken to service Centre for repair as it got damaged and it was requested by the complainant for repair under insurance on the same date i.e.04.12.2020. However, the claim filed by the complainant with the OP was repudiated vide letter dated 01.01.2021 stating that the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident, Mr Vipin Arora, was not having an effective driving licence, and DL – 13  19920048767, (NT) is for MCWG class of the vehicle(COV) as confirmed by the concerned MLO, whereas he was driving a LMV (Private car) at the time of accident.
2. Complainant submits that OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and stated that Mr Vipin Arora, the driver of the car at the time of accident, is his father who was having valid driving license, DL – 13 199200448767 issued by the transport Department, authority, government of NCT, Delhi and was authorised to drive motorcycle, LMV Commercial. Complainant submits that OP is deficient in service, in repudiating his genuine claim on frivolous grounds, which caused him mental harassment, financial losses, as well as mental agony and prayed for a sum of Rs.1,01,506/  towards claim amount along with interest of 18% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim of the car i.e.01.01.2021 along with compensation of Rs. one lakh towards mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement, stating that no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the policy issued to the complainant is subject to the terms and conditions and any failure or negligence on the part of the complainant to comply with any of them may discharge them from their obligation to indemnity. It is further submitted that the insurance policy was issued for a period from 30.08.2020 to 29.08.2021 of the said vehicle in favour of complainant, which covered the risks, subject to strict compliance of the terms and conditions, clauses, warranties and endorsement of the policy. On submission of the claim intimation form complainant to the OP, a surveyor was appointed who is submitted report dated 29.12.2020, stating that at the time of accident driver, Mr. Vipin Arora was driving the insured vehicle LMV(private car) at the time of accident who does not hold an effective driving licence, DL – 1319920048767(NT) which is for MCWG class of vehicle(COV) as confirmed by MLO – Surajmal Vihar authority and  he was not authorised to drive as per driving license. Accordingly, OP has issued rejection letter dated 01.01.2021 to the complainant, hence the said claim is not tenable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has failed to establish deficiency of service against OP.
4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder, negating the contentions of the OP and has asserted his complaint.
5. Both the parties have filed their respective documents along with their evidence. The complainant has filed copy of the policy, copy of rejection letter dated 01.01.2021, copy of driving license and repair bill dated 16.12.2020 amounting Rs.1,01,506/-. OP has filed copy of the insurance policy, survey report dated 29.12.2020, application letter dated 01.01.2021.
6. The commission has heard the arguments and perused the documents. The policy issued by OP and the accident in question is not disputed, however, perusal of the policy schedule filed by the complainant shows IDV of the vehicle as Rs. 7,34,898/- and not 7,50,000/- as stated by the complainant. The only dispute is with respect to the driving license of the driver, whether the driver was having valid DL to drive LMV (private car). Complainant has filed the driving license of the driver issued by transport department, government of NCT of Delhi. The said license shows licences to drive vehicles throughout India and the driver is authorised to drive M.CYL., LMVCOM. As per admitted case, the driver was driving LMV (private car),for which license was not given. Further, the complainant has also filed the extract of driving license which, under the head of COV, shows “LMV – TR” and “MCWG”. It also shows the validity details with respect to non-transport vehicle from 24.06.2016 to 23.06.2021, and for transport vehicle from 24.06.2016 to 23.06.2019. As per admitted fact the accident took place on 01.12.2020 and at that particular time, though the driver was having valid driving license but for LMV-TR. It is a license category to drive any LMV for commercial transportation and not valid for heavy motor vehicle
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC – 663, held, that a separate endorsement in the "Light Motor Vehicle" driving licence was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kgs.
8. Furthermore,  the difference between the category of LMV (NT) and that of LMV (commercial) has been done away with by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India vide its Circular No. RT-1102/44/2017-MVI dated 16.04.2018, while following the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Devgan's case (supra).
9. That being so and on the basis of settled legal position, the action of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant only on the ground that the driver was having license of LMV (COM) and was driving LMV (private car) is not justified and the OP is held deficient in its service in not allowing the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, OP is directed to pay to the complainant claim amount of Rs. 1,01,506/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 01.01.2021, plus a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and 10,000/- towards litigation cost. The order to be complied with within 30 days from the date of order failing which entire amount i.e. (1,01,506 +20,000+10,000) Rs. 1,31,506/-  shall carry an interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 01.01.2021.

File be consigned to record room after providing copy of the order to the parties as per CPA , 2019.

Order contains 06 pages each bears our signature.

Announced on 01.02.2024.