DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/212/2019

Date of Institution : 02.12.2019

Date of Decision : 17.03.2020

Tejinder Singh aged about 42 years son of Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of House No. B-14/1470, Sekha Road, Street No. 4, Morawali Pahi, Sekha Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.                              …Complainant

Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Sohni Plaza, Ground Floor, GT Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through its Manager.

2. Incharge, Raja Motor, Near Krishna Auto Sales, Mansa Road, Bathinda.

3. SBI General Insurance Company Limited C/o Manager State Bank of India, Pacca College Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.1986.

Present: Sh. Harjit Singh counsel for complainant. 

Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 3. 

Opposite party No. 2 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Tejinder singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that he purchased I20 Car on 28.12.2017 and for this he purchased insurance policy from opposite party No. 1 from online service at Barnala which was valid from 31.12.2018 to 30.12.2019 including the owner of vehicle. 

3. It is further alleged that on 5.4.2019 complainant was coming from Patiala to Barnala alongwith Sh. SS Rani Advocate in his car bearing No. PB-19-R-1262 and he himself driving the car. Further, when his car reach near Village Ghavda then from the opposite side one Bull suddenly struck the car and same was badly damaged. Further, in this regard a DDR was recorded in the Sadar Police Station, Sangrur on 7.11.2019. After that complainant got repair the car from Raja Motors Bathinda opposite party No. 2 for which bill for an amount of Rs. 1,56,823/- was issued by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant also spent Rs. 4,500/- for recovery van from Sangrur to Bathinda as there is no service station at Barnala. The complainant paid the repair bill through NEFT on 5.11.2019 from Punjab and Sind Bank Barnala. Further, the complainant has valid driving license which is valid up to 15.10.2027. The complainant lodged the claim on 5.9.2019 with the opposite party No. 1 who denied the same vide letter dated 22.10.2019, which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party No. 1 may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,56,823/- plus Rs. 4,500/- spent by the complainant.    

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for financial loss occurred from 5.9.2019 to 8.11.2019.            

3) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 3  filed written reply taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous evidence so appropriate remedy lies only in civil court. Further, complainants have concealed material facts from this Forum as well as from the opposite parties so he is not entitled to any relief. He concealed that the complainant was not having effective driving license and was not authorized to drive vehicle in question at the time of accident, so opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim vide letter dated 22.10.2019 in which the ground of repudiation is mentioned as under.-

“Driver is authorized to drive Non-transport vehicle fro the category MCWG and Tractor only but validity of Transport Vehicle expired on 14.10.2015 whereas the date of loss is 5.9.2019. Hence the driver was not authorized to drive the said class of vehicle which is LMV at the material time of loss. Here we invite your attention to the Driver's Clause attached to the Light Motor Vehicle certificate of insurance cum policy schedule which is reproduced as below:

Driver's Clause: Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not qualified from holding or obtaining such a license....

This clause read in conjunction with General Exception No. 3 (b) of the subject policy reproduced hereunder clearly establish breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. 

General Exception No. 3: The company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of any accidental loss or damage and/or liability caused, sustained or incurred whilst the vehicle insured herein is being driven by or is for the purpose of being driven by him/her in the change of any person other than a driver as stated in the Driver's Clause.”

Further the complaint is objected on the grounds of no cause of action or locus standi, complaint is not a consumer and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

5. On merits, it is submitted that the payment of insurance claim is to be made subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is further submitted that the opposite parties deputed surveyor Gagandeep who assessed the loss at Rs. 1,56,053 vide survey report. The claim was lodged but was denied and repudiated as the driver did not have a valid driving license. Rest of the paras of the complaint are denied by the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. The opposite party No. 2 initially appeared before this Forum on 6.1.2020 and filed their written version but later on none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 so the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.1.2020. In the written version the opposite party No. 2 admitted that the complainant paid Rs. 1,50,000/- through Federal Bank and amount of Rs. 6,823/- was paid in cash. 

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of driving license Ex.C-3, copy of screen shot of mobile Ex.C-4, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-5, copy of passbook Ex.C-6, copy of DD Ex.C-7, copy of bill details Ex.C-8, copy of Mittal Crane Service Ex.C-9, copy of letter dated 22.10.2019 Ex.C-10, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-11, another affidavit of complainant Ex.C-12, copy of deposit of fee Ex.C-13, copy of on line receipt Ex.C-14, copy of renewed driving license Ex.C-15 and closed the  evidence.   

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 tendered into evidence copy of policy Ex.OP-1.3/1, copy of letter dated 22.10.2019 Ex.OP-1.3/2, affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Ex.OP-1.3/3, copy of survey report Ex.OP-1.3/4 and closed the evidence.   

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

10. The opposite parties not denied that the complainant purchased the insurance policy Ex.C-5 for his car bearing No. PB-19-R-1262 which was in the name of the complainant for the period from 31.12.2018 to 30.12.2019 for the amount of Rs. 6,15,600/-. It is proved on the file vide copy of DDR Ex.C-7 that the said car of the complainant met with an accident during the validity period of the policy on 5.9.2019 at Village Ghavda. It is also proved on the file that the complainant spent Rs. 1,56,823/- for the repair of his car vide bill Ex.C-8 which fact also admitted by the opposite party No. 2 in their written version that they have received Rs. 1,56,823/- from the complainant for the repair of his case. It is also proved on the file that complainant spent Rs. 4,500/- vide bill Ex.C-9 for the crane service for taking his car from Sangrur to Bathinda. 

11. The only objection of the opposite parties on which basis they have repudiated the claim of the complainant is that the driver of the vehicle is authorized to drive Non transport vehicle for the category MCWG and Tractor only but validity of transport class of vehicle expired on 14.10.2015 where date of loss is 5.9.2019 so the driver was not authorized to drive the said class of vehicle which is LMV at the material time of loss. 

12. To meet this objection of the opposite parties firstly we have perused copy of the license of the complainant Ex.C-3 which was valid till 14.10.2015 for transport vehicle and valid till 15.10.2027 for non transport vehicle. Firstly the insurance claim is for a i20 car which in our view is not a transport vehicle and established as a Non Transport Vehicle. 

13. Further, as per copy of RC Ex.C-2 the weight of the car is 1154 Kg. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Mukund Devagan Versus Oriental Insurance Company and others having Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 decided on 03.07.2017 held as under.-

(b) 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 license 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 license is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A license issued under Section 10 (2) (d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.”

In view of this citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India held that no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle if its unladen weight is less than 7500 Kg. In the present case the weight of the car is 1154 Kg which is less than 7500 Kg so the complainant also not required any separate endorsement to drive this motor car and his license is valid till 15.10.2027 to drive this type of vehicle the weight of which would be less than 7500 Kg. In this way, the opposite parties repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant on wrong ground which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 

14. Further, the Surveyor the opposite parties assessed the loss of the car to the tune of Rs. 1,56,053/- as per his Survey report Ex.OP-1.3/4 whereas the complainant claimed the amount of Rs. 1,61,323/- as insurance claim from the opposite parties. 

15. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sportking Synthetics Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in IV (2019) CPJ-307 (NC) held as under.- 

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2 (1)(g), 14 (1) (d), 21 (a) (i)- Insurance- Fire accident- Surveyor appointed- Loss assessed-Full and Final settlement-Discharge voucher signed- Further claim repudiated- Deficiency in service alleged- Surveyors are appointed under provisions of Insurance Act 1938 and their report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reason- Surveyor has given a clear reason for adopting volumetric analysis for assessment of loss in respect of yarn- Stock was already burnt and only ashes were left- There is no set procedure in Insurance Act, 1938 and Surveyor has used prevailing method of assessment as per accepted norms- For valuation of stocks, clearly market value cannot be taken as loss that has been suffered by complainant as this loss is of his cost price- Surveyor has rightly used invoices and no deficiency is seen in this regard- This Commission would not sit over judgment of Surveyor because Surveyor is a technically qualified and licensed surveyor who has independently assessed loss- Interest can be awarded from date of filing of complaint if amount was not paid before filing of complaint.”

This citation of Hon'ble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present matter as in the present matter also the opposite party admitted in their written version and copy of survey report dated 18.11.2019 Ex.OP-1.3/4 that the Surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 1,56,053/- in his report. So, in view of this judgment this amount of full and final amount of the insurance claim is Rs. 1,56,053/- as Surveyor report is most important document as he is a technically qualified person appointed by the opposite parties under the provisions of Insurance Act 1938. 

16. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in case titled New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page-111 held as under.-

“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- for luxury litigation being rich.”

This citation is also fully applicable to the facts of present case as in the present matter also the opposite parties earned premium from the policyholder but at the time when complainant lodged insurance claim then opposite parties repudiated the claim on the wrong ground, which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their party and they  are liable to pay the claim of the complainant. 

17. As a result of our above discussion, there is merit in the present complaint and same is allowed. Accordingly, the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 are directed to pay Rs. 1,56,053/- to the complainant on account of insurance claim due to accidental loss of the vehicle of the complainant.  The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 are also directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties No. 1 and 3 are directed to pay the above mentioned amount of Rs. 1,56,053/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. The opposite parties No. 1 and 3 jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

          17th Day of March 2020

 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member