Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/602/2011

Swaran Singh s/o Shri Surja Singh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Manager NIC - Opp.Party(s)

JK Gupta

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 602  of 2011.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 8.6.2011

                                                                                             Date of decision: 29.9.2015.

Swaran Singh son of Shri Surja Singh, resident of House No.104, Sector-18 HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Near Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …Opposite party.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Jai Kumar Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP.                

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Swaran Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent                  ( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to make the payment of amount of claim of damages of his car which met with an accident and further to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 21000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is the registered owner of Maruti MPIE-2 Car bearing registration No. HR-02K-8455 which was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No. 120519403 valid from 26.11.2010 to 25.11.2011.  It has been further alleged that on 14.2.2011 complainant alongwith his wife was going from Jagadhri to Ambala in the aforesaid Maruti Car when they reached near village Dheen District Ambala, a bus hit the car of complainant and after making the accident the bus driver fled away from the spot and due to the accident the car badly damaged. It has been further alleged that due to the damages the complainant has spent a sum of Rs. 26,500/- which were duly paid to the Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and original bills were submitted to the OP company and after going through all the documents and bills the OP assured him that his claim will be settled within one month. Thereafter, on 31.3.2011, the OP rejected the claim of complainant vide letter No. 420402/MTU/1238/10/11 on the ground that the driving license of complainant was not valid and effective. The letter issued by the OP on 31.3.2011 is not legal and having no force in the eye of law. The acts of OP shows the deficiency in service for which the complainant is legally entitled for claim amount. Hence this complaint.   

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint not maintainable and on merit it has been mentioned that the car was being plied by Swaran Singh in the utter violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and limitation as to use because the complainant gave his license bearing No. 9987/2K issued by licensing authority Jagadhri and the same has already been expired on 15.11.2010 i.e. much prior to the purchasing of the insurance policy because the insurance policy was from 26.11.2010 to 25.11.2011 and as such the OP is not liable to indemnify the complaint. It has been further mentioned that after receiving the said driving license, the same was got verified from licensing authority, Jagadhri which was valid from 16.11.2005 to 15.11.2010 and thereafter it was got renewed on 28.3.2011 to 27.3.2016 i.e. much after the alleged date of accident i.e. 14.2.2011. Therefore, the OP is not liable in any manner whatsoever to indemnify the loss because the owner-driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of alleged accident and as such the claim of complainant was legally and rightly repudiated on 31.3.2011. It has been further mentioned that the intimation of accident was received and Sh. Ashok Kumar Sood an independent licensed surveyor and loss assessor was appointed and who gave his fact finding report dated 10.3.2011 assessing the loss of Rs. 19,293.34 subject to terms and conditions of the policy and has clearly mentioned that the driver was not holding an effective and valid driving license at the time of accident so the claim was not payable and repudiated legally and validly. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed that complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Repudiation of claim letter dated 31.3.2011 as Annexure C-1 & C-2, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of invoice dated 17.2.2011 issued by Pandit Automobile as Annexure C-4 to C-6, Photo copy of registration certificate as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure C-8  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar Sood, Independent Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of claim form Annexure R-2 & R-3, Photo copy of intimation letter as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of surveyor report as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of letter dated 29.3.2011 as Annexure R-7, Photo copy of verification letter Annexure R-8, Photo copy of claim note sheet as Annexure R-9, Photo copy of repudiation letter as Annexure R-10, Photo copy of letter dated 30.3.2011 as Annexure R-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.  6.                    We have heard the counsels for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                      It is admitted fact that the complainant is registered owner of Maruti MPIE-2 Car bearing registration No. HR-02K-8455 which was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No. 120519403 valid from 26.11.2010 to 25.11.2011 for a sum of Rs. 60,900/-. It is further not disputed that surveyor and loss assessor was deputed and Rs. 19293.34 was assessed on “Net Loss on Repair Basis” after applying the relevant depreciation clause and subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question as Annexure R-5.

8.                     The only plea of the OP is that the complainant was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. Hence, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant being violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the OP referred the case law titled as Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Versus K.Y.Sayal and another,2013 (1) CLT page 236 wherein it has been held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 3(1) and 15(1)- Insurance Claim-Repudiation-Driving license-Driver’s license in this case was renewed from 4.8.2004 and the accident had taken place on 5.7.2004 on the date of accident he did not have a valid driving license and he applied for license much after 30 days of its expiry i.e. 24.3.2004- The petitioner insurance company was justified in repudiating the complainant’s insurance claim-Order of the State Commission liable to be set aside.

9                      On the other hand, counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant has spent huge amount on the repair of his car and all the bills have been submitted to the OP but the OP has illegally repudiated his claim on false and frivolous grounds. The driving license of the complainant i.e. insured has been further renewed by the licensing authority on 28.3.2011 after its expiry on 15.11.2010, it means, the complainant/insured has never been disqualified to drive the vehicle . Even the OP has failed to prove that the complainant/insured had become incompetent to drive the vehicle in question w.e.f expiry of the driving license i.e. 15.11.2010 to its renewal i.e. 28.3.2011. Lastly prayed that OP be directed to pay the amount of repair of car in question.

10                    In the present case also the driving license of the complainant had expired on15.11.2010 and alleged accident took place on 14.2.2011 and the driving license in question was renewed on 28.3.2011 i.e. after about 4 ½ months which is evident from copy of DL Annexure R-6 and verification report issued by Licensing Authority, Jagadhri as Annexure R-8. So, the complainant was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident dated 14.2.2011. Hence, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP. Even Sh. Ashok Kumar Sood, surveyor has specifically mentioned in his report ( Annexure R-5) that claim is not payable as the driving license of the insured who was driving the car, got expired on 15.11.2010 and car met with an accident on 14.2.2011. Since the insured had not got driving license renewed after 15.11.2010. So, the insured was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Law cited by the counsel for the OP is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

11.                   Consequently, keeping in view the above noted facts and law cited by OP, this Forum is of the considered opinion that complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident i.e. on 14.2.2011 and OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

12                    Resultantly we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 29.9.2015.

           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.