Punjab

Sangrur

CC/491/2016

Sher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundram Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Mann

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  491

                                                Instituted on:    16.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       06.01.2017

 

Sher Singh son of Jangir Singh, resident of H.No.136, Village Buraj Jhabbaran, Tehsil and Distt. Mansa.

                                                        …Complainant

       

                        Versus

 

1.             Royal Sundram Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. H.O. Vishranthi Melaram Tower No.2/239, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) Karapakkam, Chennai.

2.             Royal Sundram Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office Rider House, Ground Floor Plot 136, Sector 44, Gurgaon;

3.             Royal Sundram Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office SCO 82, 1^st Floor, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

4.             Max Auto Sangrur, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its M.D.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Mann, Adv.

For O.P. No.1to3      :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.4             :       Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sher Singh complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP number 1 to 3 through OP number 4 by getting insured his Swift car bearing registration number PB-31-K-9726  for the period from 26.6.2015 to 26.6.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.14,537/- vide policy number MOP3003168000100. It is further averred that the vehicle in question of the complainant met with an accident on 25.10.2015 at Bhikhi Road Barnala when the same was being driven by the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that he intimated the OPs immediately, who directed to get the vehicle repaired from OP number 4 and assured that the repair bill as well as other charges would be paid by OP number 1. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the OP number 1 assessed the repair charges to the tune of Rs.1,40,448/-.   It is further averred that the surveyor Shri Rajesh Aggarwal also inspected the vehicle and submitted the report to the OPs.  The grievance of the complainant is that OPs number 1 to 3 initially repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that driving license of the complainant is not valid.  Further it is averred in the complaint that vide letter dated 16.6.2016, OPs intimated the complainant that the claim has rightly been denied on 17.12.2016. Further it is stated that the OPs referred the RTO through RTI for confirmation of the driving license and on receipt of conformation, they will communicate further to proceed the claim.   Further case of the complainant is that he is having a valid driving license number 3593/SDG dated 29.4.2010 valid upto 1.3.2023 and the complainant also submitted its verification, but despite that the OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant, which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,40,438/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP number 1 to 3,  the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and it is stated that the complaint is misconceived, non tenable and unwanted as the claim was rightly repudiated.  However, it is admitted that the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and on receipt of the claim intimation, the Ops appointed Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, surveyor and loss assessor and after calculating the net claim payable to the complainant was found to be Rs.1,24,067/- and the same was duly intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 25.11.2015 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further stated that on receipt of the claim documents, the driving license of the complainant was sent for verification by Mr. Vikas Chandra Jain on behalf of the company and the Licensing Authority (MV) Sargulgarh Mansa returned the same with the remarks that there is no record of the caption person, as such it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated.  It is further stated that the driving license copy as submitted by the complainant to the Ops show that the validity of the said license is till 1.3.2023, but the verification submitted shows the validity is till 4.3.2019, but for that there is no explanation from the side of the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 4, it is stated that the complainant brought the car to the OP in damaged condition on 26.10.2015 for repairs and the car was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant and the total charges for repairing the car came to Rs.1,40,448/- and the car was made ready on 14.12.2015 and the complainant was immediately informed about the same telephonically, but the complainant did not take back the delivery of the car , as such the complainant is required to pay parking charges at the rate of Rs.300/- per day from 14.12.2015 till the time the complainant does not take back his car.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the replies of the Ops, whereby he has denied the allegations levelled in the reply and has further reiterated the averments of the complaint.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-8 copy of application cum verification, Ex.C-9 copy of DL, Ex.C-10 copy of RC and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 to 3 has produced Ex.OP1to3/1 affidavit along with documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit, Ex.OP4/2 copy of job card and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his swift car in question with the OPs number 1 to 3 for Rs.4,37,067/- for the period from 26.06.2015 to 25.06.2016 as is evident from the copy of insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2.   It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 25.10.2015, intimation of which was given to the OPs, as such after receipt of the intimation the OP number 1 immediately appointed surveyor, who submitted his report, whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,24,067/-.

 

8.             In the present case the complainant has alleged that the car in question suffered a loss of Rs.1,40,448/- as the car in question was got repaired from the approved dealer of the manufacturer, OP number 4, as is evident from the copy of job card retail invoice dated 14.12.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP4/2, which clearly reveals that the car of the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,40,448/-, but the surveyor assessed the loss payable to the complainant only to the tune of Rs.1,24,067/- ,but despite all this the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as the license produced by the complainant was not intact, but the application as well as the verification given by the Licensing Authority (MV) Sardulgarh, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-8 shows that the license bearing number 3593/SDG dated 29.4.2010  has been issued by the Licensing Authority, Sardulgarh, which is valid upto 4.3.2019 and the same is correct as per the record. Further Ex.C-9 is the copy of driving license produced on record which shows that the license is valid upto 1.3.2023.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant Sher Singh was having a valid driving license at the time of accident of the vehicle in question.

 

9.             No doubt, the vehicle in question met with an accident and suffered a loss of Rs.1,40,448/- as per the invoice issued by OP number 4, but the Ops number 1 to 3 failed to settle the claim and to pay the claim amount on flimsy grounds.  Further the stand of the Ops/insurance company regarding non payment of the claim of the complainant itself is not clear.

 

10.           The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the accident of the car in question has not caused due to the negligence of the complainant nor the complainant is at all responsible for the accident of the car in question which took place on 25.10.2015.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the survey report document number 3, wherein under the head “remarks: is stated that the damages tally with the cause of accident the payment is to the Max Autos Sangrur.” It seems that the accident has not caused due to the negligence of the complainant/driver at all.  We find support for this view from the citation of our Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Dr. J.P. Jain 2006(1) CPC 288, where the claim was challenged on the ground that the person driving the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that only the fakeness of license is not sufficient for repudiation of claim, but it also should be proved that breach of condition had contributed to the accident. There was nothing wrong in the driving skill of the driver who got his license renewed after date of accident and the order of the Forum was upheld and the appeal  of the insurance company was dismissed.  In the present case, there is nothing in the complaint or established by the OP that the accident occurred due to any negligence of the complainant/driver.  Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swarn Singh and others 2008(1) CPC 203 (Supreme Court) has held that mere absence of driving license or having a fake or invalid license does not create any defence in favour of the insurer. Burden lies upon insurer to prove by positive evidence that there is breach of condition of policy by insured.  Mere absence of driving license unless it constitutes a main or contributory cause of accident does not create any defence in favour of the insurer. But, we may mention that in the present case the complainant/driver is holding a valid driving license at the time of alleged accident. 

  

11.           Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,40,448/- as per the bill/invoice raised by OP number 4 and it is worth mentioning here that due to non settlement of the claim by the Ops number 1 to 3, the vehicle is still lying parked with the OP number 4 and the complainant has been deprived from the use of the said vehicle for the said period, which we feel is itself a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs number 1 to 3.  As such,  are of the considered opinion that the Ops number 1 to 3 are liable to pay Rs.1,40,448/- on account of loss of the vehicle.

 

12.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 (Civil) 111.

 

13.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 to 3  to pay to OP number 4 an amount of Rs.1,40,448/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of invoice of OP number 4 i.e. 14.12.2015 till realisation in full and as such the OP number 4 shall hand over the vehicle in perfect condition to the complainant to his satisfaction without demanding any parking charges. We further direct OPs number 1 to 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

14.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 6, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                Member