Date of filing:- 05/08/2020.                                                                               Date of Order:-21/08/2023.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No.   59  of 2020.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal son of late Narayan Dash Agrawal, being permanent resident of Ward No.9, Puruna Basti, Po/Ps. Kantabanji, Dist. Bolangir, At. Present  residing care of Subash Chandra Dash At. Ward no. 16, Near Hotel Ganapati, Kalinga Nagar, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.                                                                                                     Complainant.

V e r s u s

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd, 301 IIIrd Floor, Krishe Block, Krishe Sapphire, madhapur, Hyderabad, Pincode 500081 and also At. 2nd Floor, Homeopathic College Road 5 Janpath Rd., Unit III, Bhubaneswar, Pin 751001.                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                    Opposite Party.                         

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-          :- Sri Jagannath Sarangi, Advocate with Associates.

For the Opposite Party :-       :- Sri Ashok Kumar Dash, Advocate with Associates.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.21/08/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-

1. The case of the Complainant is that Amit Kumar Agrawal had purchased a Dost model goods carrying commercial vehicle of Ashok Leyland product having its engine no. XGH030634P and Chassis No. MBIAA22E8GRW41322 and Regd. No. OD-03Q-2321 to earn his livelihood. He had insured the vehicle on payment of premium of Rs. 35,156/-(Rupees thirty five thousand one hundred fifty five)only with the Opposite Party vide policy No. 992491923340006862 valid from 05/09/2019 to 04/09/2020 which also covered his own Life risk of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only vide the term compulsory PA cover for owner driver with specific premium Rs. 375/-(Rupees three hundred seventy five)only. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 5,89,998/-(Rupees five lakh eighty nine thousand nine hundred ninety eight)only. His father Ashok Kumar Agrawal was the nominee in the insurance policy. During the currency of the policy on 12/12/2019 at about 2 P.M. while he was returning on Belpada-Kantabanji Road by driving the vehicle faced a severe accident with an on coming tractor near Dhupghaten Temple of Kurli under Kantabanji police station in which the vehicle got extensively damaged and he sustained grievous injuries. Although he was shifted to CHC Kantabanji for treatment, the doctor declared him dead. A police case bearing No. 297 Dt. 12/12/2019 was initiated by the Kantabanji police for this accident and finally investigating police officer submitted final Report assigning the fact true but no clue. The Complainant being the nominee/beneficiary under the policy informed the fact of accident to the Opposite Party and lodged a claim for replacement of the vehicle and reimbursement of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only for death of the owner driver/insured and submitted documents including DL of the  owner driver. After scrutinizing the documents and the DL, the Opposite party repudiated his claim on lthe ground that the deceased owner driver Amit Kumar Agrawal was authorixed to drive LMV-NT, MCWG-NT class of vehicle at the material time of accident, it is confirmed that driving licence is not valid to drive transport class of vehicle and therefore violated the motor vehicle rule. The Complainant served a pleader notice with a request for settlement of both the claims. But the Opposite Party remained silent. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2. The case of the Opposite party is that the Opposite Party. Reliance General Insurance Co.ltd. filed its version. The Opposite Party admitted that the Opposite Party issued a policy bearing No. 992491923340006862 which was valid from 05/09/2019 to 04/09/2020 against the vehicle bearing regd No. OD-03-Q-2321. The Opposite Party submitted that on verification it was found that DL No. OD0320160098765 was issued in favour of Amit Kumar Agrawal. He was authorized to dive Light Motor vehicle non transport and motor cycle with gear vehicles only. After knowing the fact that he was not authorized to drive transport class vehicle, the Opposite party repudiated the personal accident claim. Further the Opposite Party submitted that the owner/issured neither produced the vehicle before authorized service centre nor shared the document regarding the vehicles. Hence the Opposite Party closed own damage claim and intimated the insured vide letter dated 09/01/2020. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the case.
3. Perused the Complaint petition, version and documents filed by the parties  the following issues are framed:-
4.  

1.Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?

2. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get ?

Issue No.1.

            It is admitted fact that policy No. 992491923340006862 was issued by the Opposite Party in favour of Amit Kumar Agrawal and his father Ashok Kumar Agrawal was the nominee. The policy covers own damage claim and personal accident claim. The insured Amit Kumar Agrawal paid Rs. 35,156/-(Rupees thirty five thousand one hundred fifty six)only as  premium and Rs. 375/-(Rupees three hundred seventy five)only for compulsory PA cover for owner driver for 15 laks. The IDV of the vehicle is Rs. 5,89,998/-(Rupees five lakh eighty nine thousand nine hundred ninety eight)only. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the ground that the diver had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Whether the repudiation made by the Opposite Party is proper? The Complainant cited a Supreme Court Judgement Mukund Dewangan V. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. In this case the Supreme court held that there was no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. A driver holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle(LMV) can drive a transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that  effect. The plea taken by the Opposite Party that the driver has no valid licence is not acceptable. In case of own damage claim the Complainant not submitted any document regarding damaged vehicle. The Opposite party also not submitted survey report. Hence the own damage claim of the vehicle is considered on non standard basis i.e. 75% of the IDV. The Opposite Party is deficient in service for non settlement of personal Accident claim and own damage claim.

            The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2.

            For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only for personal accident claim and 75% of the IDV i.e. Rs. 4,42,498/-(Rupees four lakh forty two thousand four hundred ninety eight)only for own damage claim.

            The issue is answered accordingly.

As per supra discussion the following order is passed.

O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only for personal accident claim and Rs. 4,42,498/-(Rupees four lakh forty two thousand four hundred ninety eight)only for own damage claim to the Complainant within 30 days of this Order. Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant.

Failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization.

Order pronounced in open court on this  21^st    day of  August 2023.

            Supply free copies to the parties. 

      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                             and corrected by me.                                                                                           

                   I  agree/-                                                                       

       ( Smt. Anju Agrawal )                                                                  ( Jigeesha Mishra )

              Dt.21/08/2023                                                                            Dt.21/08/2023

              M e m b e r  (w)                                                                        P r e s i d e n t.