The General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
Date of Filing:18.09.2007 Date of Order: 10.03.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1938 OF 2007 Vijaya Shivakumar, S/o Late Abbaiah, R/at No. 38, I Main, Vivekananda Colony, kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore-560 078. Complainant V/S The General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office No.8, No.22, II Floor, Govindappa Road, DVG Main Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004. Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that, the complainant is a owner of Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.KA-05 C-2596. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party. The above vehicle was involved in the accident on 18/9/2005. The fact was intimated to the opposite party. The complainant made claim before the opposite party. Policy was in force. Complainant has incurred sum of Rs.96,650/- towards the repair of the vehicle. The opposite party issued an endorsement on 17/1/2006 stating that, driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective license as on the date of accident. In fact driver was having DL. However, it was lapsed because of non-renewal. Subsequently, the same was renewed. Complainant claimed sum of Rs.96,650/- against the opposite party. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party has put in appearance and filed defence version stating that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license on the date of accident. Renewal of DL taken place after expiry of 30 days of license. Opposite party properly examined the same on the basis of documents and repudiated the claim. The action taken by the opposite party is just and proper. Hence, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidence of both then parties filed. Arguments are heard. 4. The short point for consideration is:- Whether the opposite party can be directed settle the claim on nonstandard basis? REASONS 5. It is a simple case and the facts are admitted. The complainant has produced letter of opposite party dated 31st March-2006 wherein the claim put forward by the complainant had been repudiated the on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license on the date of accident. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant himself in the complaint. However, the complainant has produced a letter from the RTO stating that the DL of the Driver had been renewed from 22/10/2005 to 21/10/2008. But in this case, the accident of the vehicle had taken place on 18/9/2005. Therefore, on the date of accident the driver had no valid and effective DL. The driver of the vehicle was not disqualified from holding the license. But the fact remains that he had no effective driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, as per the policy condition the opposite party repudiated the claim. The learned counsel for the complainant had relied upon a decision of Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New-Delhi reported in 1(2003) CPJ 2004 (NC) wherein it has been held as under:- Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21(b)-Insurance-Repudiation of claim-Driver not having valid driving licence-Claim dismissed by Forum, allowed by State Commission, settlement directed on non-standard basis-O.P directed to pay 75% of assessed amount with interest @ 9% p.a-No interference required in revision. As per the above authority of law it is clear that the opposite party is right in repudiating the claim on the ground that the driver was not holding an effective driving license on the date of accident. However, the Forum can direct the opposite party to settle the claim on non standard basis. The complainant has produced receipt of Prerana Motors Pvt. Ltd., and he has got repaired the vehicle and spent sum of Rs.96,650/-. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice will be met in directing the opposite party to pay 50% of the amount spent by the complainant towards repair of the vehicle, because Consumer Protection Act is a social legislation. It is intended to safeguard the better interest of the consumers. It is one of the benevolent social legislation. The act has come as a Panacea for consumers all over the country and it has assumed the shape of the most important legislation enacted in the country. It has become the vehicle for enabling the people to secure speedy and inexpensive justice. Though, in this case the driver of the vehicle had no driving license on the date unfortunate accident. His license had lapsed and he had failed to renew it within 30 days of date of expiry. However, he got renewed after few days of the cut of date. The insurance company is not total debarred in allowing the claim even if the driver had no DL. Therefore, I feel it would be just proper and reasonable to direct the opposite party to accept 50% of the claim of the complainant and pay the amount. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.48,325/- (50% of the claim on nonstandard basis) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the award amount caries interest at 9% p.a from the date of complaint. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2008. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
