Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/808/2022

VIJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

ANISH BABBAR

05 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/808/2022
Date of Institution	:	16/09/2022
Date of Decision	:	05/12/2023

 

Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Gulshan Kumar r/o H.No.67, Ward No.II, Near Anaj Mandi, Derabassi (Punjab)-140507.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its authorised signatory, SCO No.57-58-59, 4^th Floor, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anish Babbar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Vijay Kumar, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant, being registered owner of a Eicher/Pro vehicle bearing registration No.PB10DF2477 (hereinafter referred to as “subject vehicle”) had purchased a Reliance Commercial Vehicles (GCV other than 3 wheelers public) Package policy (Annexure C-1) from the OP which was valid w.e.f. 25.5.2021 to 24.5.2022 by paying premium of ₹19,745/-.  On 31.3.2022, subject vehicle met with an accident at Sonepat and suffered major loss and even its driver had also died.  Necessary action for lodging FIR also started at Sonepat.  Immediately intimation about the accident was also given to the OP on the next day i.e. 1.4.2022 and further claim form alongwith other documents (Annexure C-2 Colly.) were also submitted to the OP on 14.4.2022.  Though the OP had deputed surveyor to assess the loss, but, the complainant was not intimated about the same. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP to know about the status of claim, but, he was shocked to know that the same was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 31.5.2022 (Annexure C-3) on the ground that the driver, Ashok Kumar was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive TRANS class of vehicle in terms of Section 75 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.  It is further alleged that law on this point has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court by holding that a transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg., would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” is competent to drive a transport vehicle. Even the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment have also been made law of the land and the Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways (MORTH) has also clarified the same and issued notification dated 16.4.2018 (Annexure C-4) to that effect.  In this manner, OP has wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant.  The complainant again represented to the OP for settlement of his claim and also sent a legal notice dated 12.8.2022 (Annexure C-6), but, with no success. The complainant suffered a huge loss on account of aforesaid accident and had also borne charges (Annexure C-7) to the tune of ₹60,000/- for picking subject vehicle from Sonepat to Ambala and Ambala to Derabassi.  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, concealment of facts etc.  It is alleged that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated due to violation of the terms and conditions of the subject policy by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the loss assessed by the expert surveyor as per his report (Annexure R-2) is ₹2,51,596/-. It is further alleged that since the subject vehicle was hypothecated with HDB Financial Services Ltd. and in its absence, consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, admitted that the subject vehicle was insured with the answering OP at the relevant time and also that the same met with an accident on 31.3.2022, but, denied that the driver of the subject vehicle died as the complainant had not provided any post mortem report of the deceased.  It is further denied that the complainant informed about the accident to the OP on 1.4.2022 and in this manner there is delay of more than two weeks in providing information to the OP about the accident.  However, it is admitted that the complainant had submitted the claim form (Annexure R-3) with the OP.  It is further alleged that since the alleged driver of the subject vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive TRANS class of vehicle, there was violation of the terms & conditions of the policy and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that complainant is the registered owner of the subject vehicle and the same was duly insured with the OP at the relevant time, as is also evident from the subject policy (Annexure C-1) and the same met with an accident at Sonepat on 31.3.2022 and the complainant had also submitted the claim form (Annexure C-2) with the OP and the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 31.5.2022 (Annexure C-5) on the ground that the driver of the subject vehicle was not possessing TRANS class licence at the time of accident, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP is unjustified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the OP is justified in repudiating the claim on account of violation of the terms & conditions of the subject policy i.e. driver of the subject vehicle was driving the same without possessing a valid driving licence and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the terms & conditions of the subject policy (Annexure C-1), driving licence of the driver and the repudiation letter (Annexure C-3) and the same are required to be scanned carefully in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules.
   3. Perusal of the subject policy (Annexure C-1) clearly indicates that the subject vehicle was insured with the OP/insurer w.e.f. 25.5.2021 to 24.5.2022 having IDV of ₹3,15,000/-. Annexure C-2 is the copy of claim form which was submitted by the complainant with the OP giving all the details about the accident.  Copy of renewal of Home State Authorization Certificate qua the subject vehicle (available at page 26 of the complainant’s paperbook) clearly indicates that the subject vehicle was of “goods carrier” type and the permit was valid at the relevant time.  Similarly copy of National Permit (available at page 27 of the paperbook) further indicates that the gross weight of the subject vehicle was 7200 kg. whereas the unladen weight was 3510 kg.  Extract of copy of driving licence (available at page 30) of the driver indicates that LMV, MCWG licence was issued to the driver by Licensing Authority, Derabassi. Similarly, copy of registration certificate (at page 31) of the subject vehicle also indicates that the weight of the subject vehicle was 7200 kg.
   4. Annexure C-3 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 31.5.2022 which indicates that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the subject vehicle was not found authorised to drive TRANS class of vehicle which was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The relevant portion of the repudiation letter is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“On scrutinizing the driving license of the Mr. Ashok Kumar (D/L No.-PB-7020130008077).L.A. Dera Bassi. authorized to drive MCWG & LMV class of vehicles) who was driving the insured vehicle at the material time of accident, it was confirmed that the Driving license is not valid to drive TRANS class of vehicle. As the license was not effective at the time of accident, it is a violation of rules mentioned below.

As per Motor Vehicle Act "(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective and valid driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a Motor cab or motorcycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so.

Further As per Policy Schedule under Driver Clause: "Any person including the insured Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

We are unable to process the claim due to breach of Drivers clause of the motor insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. Hence the claim stands repudiated.”

5. Annexure C-4 is the copy of letter dated 16.4.2018 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways which indicates that all the Principal Secretaries (Transport)/Secretaries (Transport)/Transport Commissioners of the States/ UTs alongwith DGPs of all States and UTs were directed to comply with the judgment dated 3.7.2017 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 – Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
6. It has been contended with vehemence on behalf of the complainant that as it stands proved on record that the driver of the subject vehicle was possessing a valid driving licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and further it is an admitted case of the parties that the gross weight of the subject vehicle was 7200 kgs. and since it is settled law on this point that the vehicle below the weight of 7500 kgs. falls in the category of LMV, OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
7. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the OP that as it stands proved on record that the subject vehicle was of goods carrier category and as the driver of the same was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive the goods carrier/commercial vehicle, the claim was rightly repudiated due to violation of the terms and conditions of the subject policy and the consumer complaint be dismissed.
8. There is no force in the contention of the OP as law on this point has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“(ii)  A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of 60 light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.”

 

9. Not only this, even the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide notification dated 16.4.2018 has already directed the Principal Secretaries/ Secretaries/Transport Commissioners and DGPs of all States/UTs to comply with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
10. In view of the foregoing and the ratio of law laid down in Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra) since the gross weight of the subject vehicle is 7200 kgs., which falls under the category of LMV, for which the driver was possessing a valid driving licence and no separate endorsement was required qua the same, it is safe to hold that the driver of the subject vehicle was possessing a valid driving licence and the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and the said act clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
11. So far as the defence of the OP that the financier i.e. HDB Financial Services Ltd. has not been impleaded as party in the present consumer complaint is concerned, since the complainant has already proved on record the copy of closure letter (NOC) dated 12.1.2023 (Annexure C-9) issued by the aforesaid financier certifying that the loan account had been closed, it is safe to hold that the said financier is not a necessary party for adjudication of the present lis.
12. Now coming to the quantum of relief, no doubt the complainant has tendered/proved the estimate of repair to the tune of ₹5,73,835/- [available at page 17-23 with the claim form (Annexure C-2 colly.)], but, since it is only an estimate of repair and not the final bill, much weightage cannot be given to the same in order to determine the repair cost of the subject vehicle in the light of the fact that the surveyor deputed by the OP has given detailed report dated 30.5.2022  (Annexure R-2) and thereby assessed the insurance liability amount to the tune of ₹2,51,596/-.  Though the complainant has resisted the said detailed report of the surveyor, but, since the complainant has himself failed to prove the actual repair cost of the subject car, the said detailed surveyor report cannot be ignored simply on the ground that the same has been objected by the complainant just for the sake of objection.
13. Needless to mention here that surveyor report is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weightage and can only be ignored if there is any other cogent evidence to the contrary.  The Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) held as under:-

“The Report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight and relied upon until and unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence that the Report submitted could not be relied upon.”

Further the Hon’ble National Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd., II (2023) CPJ 468 (NC) held as under:-

            “Insurance — Surveyors’ report — Survey and investigation are one of fundamentals in settling claim, and cannot and should not be disregarded or dismissed without cogent reasons, though it also goes concomitantly that survey or investigation should be convincing and pass test of credence in scrutiny — State Commission has not gone into contents of surveyors’ reports at all on ground that reports were filed belatedly before it — Reports were in any case available before State Commission and as such it ought to have examined their contents rather than dismissing them outright — Depending upon circumstances State Commission could have even imposed terms including cost for belatedly filing reports but to treat them as suspicious and to perfunctorily dismiss them outright merely because they were filed belatedly was not approach either justified or called for — No need to examine surveyors’ reports at this stage at any great length since both parties agree that settlement may be made on basis of respective surveyor’s assessment of actual loss in each case.”

The Hon’ble National Commission in Detco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (2023) CPJ 535 (NC) held as under:-

        “The Surveyor conducted a very detailed inspection of the premises and assessed the loss after due verification of documents. He assessed the total loss to the building, plant & machinery and furniture etc. at Rs.11,21,18,099/- after making necessary deductions of Rs.5,605,905/- towards excess clause and taking care of the process charges, debris removal, architects fee and goods held in trust arrived at the net adjusted loss of Rs.10,65,12,194/-. For every item, the Surveyor had explained the basis of arriving at the amount. The Complainant on the other hand had not placed any evidence to establish that the assessment made by the Surveyor was incorrect. The Complainant, therefore, cannot be allowed the amount beyond the assessment of the Surveyor. We see no reason not to agree with the assessment made by the Surveyor.”

14. In view of the foregoing discussion and the ratio of law laid down above, it is safe to hold that the OP/ insurer is liable to pay to the complainant the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. ₹2,51,596/- alongwith interest and compensation etc. for the harassment suffered by him.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹2,51,596/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 31.5.2022 till the date of payment.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/12/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member