Haryana

StateCommission

A/960/2015

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI DUTT - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No :    960 of  2015

Date of Institution:      02.11.2015

Date of Decision          :      07.12.2015 

  

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Post Box No.254, Hari Niwas Towers, 2^nd Floor, 163, Thambu Chety Street, Parry’s Corner, Chennai – 600 001.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Shri Dutt son of Sh. Pyare Lal, resident of Village Saifyabad, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM              Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

For the parties:   Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing the present appeal, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) has challenged the order dated July 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by Shri Dutt-complainant was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.90,627/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.2000/- litigation expenses.

2.      Complainant got his tractor bearing No.HR10U-9424 insured with the Insurance Company for the period August 21^st, 2013 to August 20^th, 2014.  On February 10^th, 2014, tractor met with an accident and damaged. The complainant submitted claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled.

3.      Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that at the time of accident, driver Dev Dutt was not having a valid and effective driving licence for driving tractor/trailer.   The complainant did not inform the Insurance Company within time. 

4.      The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that driver Dev Dutt was not holding valid and effective driving licence. 

5.      This Commission does not concur with the submission raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company.  Indisputably, the vehicle involved is tractor.  The driving licence (Annexure A-4) of driver Dev Dutt clearly shows that it was endorsed for driving M.C with Gear, LMV (NT) Car, Tractor only.  There is no requirement of additional endorsement for authorizing to drive tractor with trolly attached.  This being so, the contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled.  As such, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.

6.       The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 07.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK