Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 440.
Instituted on : 25.11.2014.
Decided on : 14.03.2016.
Krishan Kumar son Rameshwar resident of village post office Rithal Phogat, Panna, Maghu, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Jawahar Market, opposite D Park Model Town, Rohtak.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, LIC Building, 2nd floor, Jagadhari road, Ambala Cantt., Haryana-133001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. B.S.Saroha, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-12W-5936 which was insured with the opposite parties and the aforesaid motorcycle met with an accident and damaged badly. It is averred that complainant intimated the opposite parties about the accident and submitted his claim of damages regarding the said vehicle and completed all formalities. Opposite parties got surveyed the vehicle but vide their letter dated 28.07.2014 had repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is averred that complainant made so many requests to the opposite parties to settle the claim but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount of vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the opposite party deputed a surveyor Sh.V.K.Arya to assess the loss who submitted his report on 05.07.2014 and assessed the loss of Rs.6200/- and settled the claim as per terms and conditions of the remarks that insured was having a learner driving license and he is not authorized to drive without pillion rider. As such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 28.07.2014 as per terms and conditions of the policy after proper investigation. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and has closed the evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and accident of the vehicle is not disputed. It is also not disputed that after the accident complainant filed the claim with the opposite parties. Opposite parties appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R4 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.6200/- but the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.R7 has repudiated the claim on the ground that the Driving licence of the driver is Learner Licence”. The contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite parties is that as per M.V. Rules 1989 the person holding a Learner’s license is prohibited from driving any motor vehicle unless he had besides him a person duly licenced to drive the vehicle and in every case the vehicle carries “L” both in the front and in the rare of the vehicle.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that at the time of accident the driver was having learner’s license who was not authorized to driver the vehicle without a pillion rider. But to prove their contention opposite parties have not placed on record any document. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(3)393LJR titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Usha Rani and others whereby Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that: “There was no evidence on record to show that the diver was not accompanied by an instructor holding an effective license-Insurance company cannot take the defence that the leaner licence was not a valid licence”, as per III(2006) ACC 242 (SC) titled as Mahamooda & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that : “Even when offending vehicle driven by person holding leaner’s licence, insurer’s liability existed” and Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in IV(2006)CPJ400(NC) titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar has held that: “Person having learner’s license is ‘authorised driver’ and is entitled to drive vehicle- He comes within purview of ‘duly licensed’-if vehicle at relevant time being driven by person holding learner’s licence, causes accident, insurer liable to compensate”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that in the present case also, the complainant was having learner’s licence was authorized driver and opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant as per survey report.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor as per his report Ex.R4 i.e. to pay Rs.6200/-(Rupees six thousand two hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.11.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of order failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.03.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
