Haryana

StateCommission

A/939/2013

Asha Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                           First Appeal No.939 of 2013

                                                 Date of Institution:18/20.12.2013                                                           Date of Decision:03.08.2016

 

Asha Ram S/o Sh.Duli Chand, r/o V.P.O. Anta, Tehsil Safidon, Distt. Jind.

…Appellant

                                      Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Jind having its office at SCO No.23-24, Third Floor, HUDA ground, Tehsil and Distt. Jind through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             …Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mr.M.K.Garg, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                   Mr. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                                ORDER

 

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Asha Ram–complainant–owner of the TATA LPT-909- registration No.HR-56-9323, is in appeal against the Order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby his complaint against the New India Insurance Company Ltd. has been dismissed by following strictly the terms and condition of the Commercial insurance policy.  

2.         In brief, the complainant got his vehicle insured for a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- with the OP vide Policy No.35340231100100002052, valid w.e.f. 17.03.2011 to 16.03.2012. The vehicle was being driven by Faroj Khan driver when on 29.05.2011 all of a sudden a cow came in front of the vehicle and in the process to save the life of cow, the vehicle got struck against a tree. The vehicle was totally damaged and the driver succumbed to the injury. The complainant lodged a claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents but the claim was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 12.06.2012, on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driving licence of the driver was of a Light Motor Vehicle and not for driving a heavy vehicle like truck. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming the amount of Rs.6,40,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses etc.   

3.         Opposing the complaint, the OP pleaded that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license, which was got verified by the OP from the office of concerned Licensing Authority, Nagaland. As per terms and conditions of the Policy, the Insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation to the insured, still, the Surveyor and loss assessor was deputed by the OP to assess the loss of the vehicle. The surveyor submitted his report dated 21.10.2011 by assessing the net loss to the tune of Rs.5,88,500/-. But, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant was not entitled to any relief and compensation. Agreeing with the stand taken by the OP, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 28.10.2013.  

4.         Against this impugned order dated 28.10.2013, the complainant has come up in appeal before us and has vehemently reiterated the contentions raised before the District Forum. He has mainly contended that when the insurance policy was within the validity period, the OP could not repudiate the claim.

5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been satisfactorily proved on record by the OP – insurance company that the complainant Asha Ram, the owner of the Truck had taken a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy for his vehicle TATA LPT-909, but the vehicle was driven by his driver Faroj Khan, who was authorized only to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The endorsement authorizing him to drive MMV, MHV was subsequent to the date of accident. Therefore, the driver could not legally drive TATA LPT-909, which was a commercial transport vehicle. It is settled law that an Insurance Policy is in the nature of a contract between insured and insurer and the terms and conditions of the policy contract have to be strictly followed by both the parties. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and we uphold the order passed by the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

 

August 03rd, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K. Bishnoi

                                       Member                                  Judicial Member

                                       Addl. Bench                            Addl. Bench

S.K.