Complainant M/s.Bali Sales Corporation through its Partner Rohit Bali vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite party to pay the IDV value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,50,000/-. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is consumer of the opposite party and insured his vehicle having No.PB-06-T-4289 from the opposite party vide policy no.36160231150100003478. During the period of insurance his vehicle met with an accident on 25 March, 2016 and damaged. The claim has been filed and all the relevant documents have been duly provided to the opposite party but they failed to make the payment inspite of repeated requests. The vehicle was totally damaged in the accident and as such he is entitled for the IDV value of the vehicle. The opposite party repudiated his genuine claim on the ground that the driving license during verification found to be expired on 16.8.2013. Actually, the driving license of driver Vishal is valid and effective at the time of accident. The opposite party had wrongly repudiated his claim. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party insurer appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was admitted that the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question was not valid and effective at the time of alleged accident. It was next submitted that as soon as the insurance company received the information of loss to the insured vehicle in question due to the alleged accident, the opposite party deputed Mr.Shanti Swaroop Sharma, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for the spot inspection, who visited the site of accident and took the photographs of the damaged vehicle and submitted his report alongwith the said photographs to the insurance company. Thereafter, the Insurance Company deputed another Surveyor Mr.Arun Udhey Singh for assessment of the loss of damaged vehicle, who made the Net Assessment of the loss of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,39,481/- and submitted his assessment report to the insurance company but the complainant is not entitled for the same, as the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. As per the verification report dated 26.12.2016 conducted by Sh.Satish Chander Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Faridabad, of driving licence no.9209-F-1998:HR-5119980186493 of Mr.Vishal son of Sh.T.R.Sharma, from the office of Licensing Authority, Faridabad, the said Driving Licence was genuine upto 16.8.2013 and further has expired and not renewed. Hence, at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, which is a major breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Secondly, at the time accident, Sh.Vishal, driver of the vehicle was driving under the influence of Alcohol and alleged accident was took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. Hence, under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the complainant is not entitled for the claim. The complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score only. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Shiv Lal Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for that ignored to be produced) to determine their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint.
7. We find that the present dispute had prompted at the OP insurer’s duly admitted repudiation (Ex.OP2) of the complainant’s total-loss insurance claim of the accidented-car on account of the ‘expired-driving-license’ of Driver who has also been alleged to have been driving rashly under the influence of liquor. However, the OP insurers have failed to prove its above allegations by way of some cogent evidence duly produced on records. The OP produced DL verification (Ex.OP3) stands proved to be incorrect/invalid at the face of the complainant produced DL verifications (Ex.C2 to Ex.C4) and the other allegation of alcohol consumption by Driver gets negated/nullified itself by the concluding paragraphs of the Final Form/Report (Ex.OP5) U/s 173 CRPC produced in the honorable court of JMIC, Jogindernagar (HP). However, the OP insurers have duly produced the Final Survey/ Investigator’s Report that goes un-contested/un-rebutted through some parallel repair quotation and/or independent valuation/assessment and that limits the OP liability to the Surveyor’s Repair Assessment (Ex.OP4) for an amount of Rs.1,39,481/- only thus ruling out the total-loss claim-benefit @ full IDV of Rs 3.50 Lac.
8. On the other hand, the complainant has successfully filed his deposition (affidavit Ex.C1) and other evidence produced vides (Ex.C2 to Ex.C6) evidentiary documents that satisfactorily prove the complaint-context allegations to entitle him to the one favorable statutory award under the applicable Act.
9. The OP1 insurers have placed forth their evidence vide the produced documents exhibited here as Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 but have somehow failed to prove the alleged expiry of the related Driving License and the other allegation of rash negligent driving as a result of alcohol consumption etc. However, the OP produced Final Repair Estimates/Survey Bills Assessments have gone in its favor by limiting its liability.
10. Thus, we find that the impugned repudiation of the instant insurance claim at the hands of the OP insurers certainly infringes the consumer rights of the complainant all the more so at the face of their own inadvertent mistaken verification of the related DL of the driver as per the applicable governing law. Presently, we find that the OP insurers have not been able to justify the impugned ‘claim-repudiation’ and did not even attempt to settle the ‘claim’ as of ‘now’ during the ‘pendency’ of the present complaint to show/exhibit its bona fide intentions but it chose otherwise and thus we hold it guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practices’ etc.
11. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Insurers to pay the impugned claim up to the full amount of Rs.1,39,481/- as per the Final Survey Report (under the related Policy) to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation besides Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present orders till actually paid.
12. Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
May 18, 2018 Member
*MK*
