Delhi

East Delhi

CC/378/2013

RAMESH CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

RILIANCE GEN. INS. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 378/13

 

Shri Ramesh Chand

S/o Shri Vashdev Sharma

R/o Village Luheta Khurd

Hathras District,

Mahamaya Nagar, UP                                                               ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Manager

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

60, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase – III

New Delhi – 110 020

 

2. Magma Shrachi Finance Limited

A-193, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase – I

New Delhi – 110 020                                                                        ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 16.05.2013

Judgment Reserved on:04.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 11.01.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Ramesh Chand has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-1) and Magma Shrachi Finance Limited  (OP-2) for deficiency in services. 

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant, registered owner of Tata Mini Truck, registration no. UP-8-6E-9570, got his vehicle insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-1) vide policy no. 1506072334010418 for the period from 18.01.2008 to 17.01.2009 for an amount of Rs. 7,60,000/-.  The complainant was continuously taking policy from OP-1.  He renewed his policy no. 1501902334109522 for the period 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013 after making a payment of Rs. 14,324/-.  In the mean time, the complainant received the RC from OP-2.

            On 12.08.2012, the said vehicle got damaged in road accident and FIR was lodged at Police Station Hath Gava, Distt. Pratapgarh.  The complainant spent about Rs. 2,00,000/- on the repairing of the said vehicle at Kamla Denting and painting workshop at Dada Nagar, Kanpur.  The complainant handed over the entire bills at the time of inspection, to the surveyor, appointed by OP-1. 

The complainant submitted the bills of repair to the office of OP-1 at Kanpur Mall Road Office on 06.11.2011 alongwith DL of the Driver Dhirendra Singh.  It has been stated by the officials of OP-1 that his claim will be settled and the claim amount will be paid within short period.  The complainant received a letter dated 22.12.2012 from OP-1 stating that the DL of the driver was not valid on the date of accident i.e. 12.08.2012 and the claim was not to be paid by the company. 

The complainant has stated that Licensing Authority of the Motor Transport Authority Etah, UP has verified the DL of the driver     Dhirendra Singh with its endorsement dated 31.12.2012 that the DL was valid for LMV (NT) and endorsed for HTV on 16.01.1999, which was valid from 14.02.2011 to 13.02.2014.  It has also been stated that the entire original documents were handed over to the respondents for settlement of claim.         

A legal notice of dated 23.02.2013 was served upon the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-1).  Inspite of notice, OP have failed to pay the claim amount. Hence, the complainant has stated that OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- being the expenses incurred for repair or settle the claim as per documents lying with OP-1 alongwith 24% interest, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment & mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- litigation cost. 

3.        In the written statement, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-1) have stated that immediately on receipt of intimation of loss to vehicle no. UP-86E-9570 in accident, on 12.08.2012, a surveyor was appointed to conduct investigation.  On going through the documents supplied to the surveyor and survey report, it was found that DL of      Mr. Dhirendra Singh had expired on 13.02.2011.  It has further been stated that there was violation of “Driving Clause” of Insurance Policy no. 1305712334002008 endorsed on front page “Mark” for the period 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013; since there was no consumer dispute, this Forum has no jurisdiction and the present complaint was baseless and flagrant abuse of the process of law.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its claim, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents, such as copy of RC (Ex. CW1/A), Insurance (Ex. CW1/B), receipt of EMI (Ex. CW1/C), receipt of premium for the period 18.01.2011 to 17.01.2012 (Ex. CW1/D), receipt of Rs. 14,234/- for covering a period of 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013 (Ex. CW1/E), No Objection for re-issue of the registration certificate (Ex. CW1/F), copy of FIR (Ex. CW1/G), letter dated 12.08.2012 (Ex. CW1/H), copy of DL (Ex. CW1/I), copy of DL verification (Ex. CW1/J), copy of legal notice (Ex. CW1/K), postal receipt (Ex. CW1/L) and proof of delivery (Ex. CW1/M).

            No evidence has been filed by OP.

6.        We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It  has been argued on behalf of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-1) that the claim of the complainant has not been passed as the driving licence of the driver was not valid. 

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the driving licence of the driver was valid. He has drawn attention of the court to the DL Verification Report (Ex. 1/J) where expiry of the driving licence has been shown as 14.02.2008 to 13.02.2011 and 14.02.2011 to 13.02.2014. 

Counsel for OP has drawn attention of the court to DL, where the validity of the licence has been shown as 14.02.2008 to 13.02.2011.  However, no evidence has been placed on record on behalf of OP to substantiate this point, even the form of driving licence to which counsel for OP have relied upon shows that the licence was valid upto 13.02.2014.  In the absence of any evidence on record on behalf of OP with regard to validity of driving licence, the same plea made on behalf of OP that the driving licence was not valid at the time of accident cannot be accepted at all. 

            On the other hand, the verification report filed by the complainant, which was collected during the course of investigation shows that the driving licence was valid from 14.02.2011 to 13.02.2014.  The date of accident has been 12.08.2012.  The fact that on the date of accident, driving licence was valid, the verification report collected by police authorities during the course of investigation has to be accepted as it is.  That being so, the plea of OP that the claim of the complainant cannot be entertained due to validity of driving licence cannot be accepted. 

            In view of the above, we are of the opinion that not processing of the claim by OP on the ground of validity of driving licence was not justified.  Hence, we direct Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-1) to process the claim of the complainant and decide the same within a period of 30 days on the receipt of the order.  Since, no relief has been claimed against Magma Shrachi Finance Limited     (OP-2) as they have already issued NOC as stated by the counsel for the complainant, no order is passed against Magma Shrachi Finance Limited  (OP-2).   

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                              (SUKHDEV SINGH)    

        Member                                                                             President