BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.347 of 2014
Date of Instt. 07.10.2014
Date of Decision :17.04.2015
Jasbir Singh Gill aged about 65 years son of Avtar Singh R/o Float No.206,24, Carate Gold Apartment Ravinder Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. The Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chenai-600014.
2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Divisional Office No.II, Syal House, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.NS Minhas Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite parties.
Order
J.S Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is the owner of the Toyota Etios Car having chassis No.MBJB4ZBT000025692, Engine No.1ND1255704 and having registration No.PB-01A-0543. The complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the opposite parties bearing No.TUI/11073575 for the said vehicle on 21.5.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.30646/- to the opposite parties. Unfortunately on 3.9.2013 the car of the complainant met with an accident and thereafter the said vehicle was repaired by the authorized dealer of of Toyata at GT Road, Jalandhar and the bill regarding the repair charges was paid by the complainant and thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties for the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the repair of the above said vehicle. The complainant has submitted all the formalities/documents as required by the opposite parties but vide letter dated 18.12.2013 opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant pertaining to the above said vehicle on a flimsy ground that the driver of the car was not holding a valid driving license. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party insurance company to pay him the claim amount.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that at the time of accident on 3.9.2013, the vehicle bearing No.PB-01A-0543 was being driven by one Amarjit Singh son of Santokh Singh. Driving license of Amarjit Singh son of Santokh Singh bearing No.PB-0920050067122 issued by Licensing Authority-cum-District Transport Officer, Kapurthala was for Good Carrying Vehicle and not for passenger carrying vehicle, as such the above said vehicle insured with the opposite parties was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive a passenger carrying tourist taxi in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy particularly driver's clause, as such claim of the complainant was not payable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties after due application of mind on the ground that driving license of Amarjit Singh is valid only for goods carrying vehicle and not for carrying passengers vide letter of repudiation dated 18.12.2013 and the complainant was informed accordingly. For driving a tourist taxi/Maxi Cab, there must be specific endorsement on the driving license of the driver of Tourist Taxi/Maxi Cab fro driving specific category and class of vehicle i.e Transport/LMV-PSV(Public Service Vehicle). They denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/E and closed evidence
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O6 and evidence of opposite parties closed by order.
5 We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. The insured car/Maxi Cab of the complainant met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy and was damaged. The car/Maxi Cab was got repaired by the complainant and thereafter he lodged claim with the opposite party insurance company but opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the driver was not holding a valid driving license vide letter dated 18.12.2013. It is not disputed that at the time of accident Amarjt Singh son of Santokh Singh was driving the vehicle i.e car/Maxi Cab in question. The complainant has himself produced the copy of his driving license Ex.CW1/E. In the column of vehicle clause MCWG and LMV-GV are mentioned. Ex.O1 is also copy of above said driving license produced by opposite party insurance company. Ex.O4 is copy of contract carriage permit of the Car/Maxi Cab in question. So the driving license of the driver was valid for goods carrying vehicle and not for passengers carrying vehicle. For driving passengers carrying vehicle is specific endorsement on such type of license is required. So in our opinion, the driver was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident. It constitute violation of the condition of the policy. So opposite party insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on this ground.
7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
17.04.2015 Member Member President
