Haryana

Karnal

567/2012

Roshan Lal S/o Manphool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.M. Sharma

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         

                                                          Complaint No. 567 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.: 3.12.2012

                                                          Date of decision: 23.11.2015.

 

Roshan Lal son of Shri Manphool Singh resident of village Dholgarh, Post office Uchana district Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, GT Road, near Bus stand, Karnal.

 

2.The Branch Manager,  The New India Assurance Company Limited, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma……………Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.R.M.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gurmit Singh  Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No. HR-47A-3841  from the Opposite Party ( in short OP) No.2, vide cover note No. 355540  dated 16.2.2011.  The said vehicle met with an accident due to which the  same was badly damaged.  He intimated the OP  who  deputed surveyor. Loss was assessed by the surveyor and thereafter claim No.2011/0001381  was lodged. All the formalities were completed by him but the Ops, vide letter dated 10.5.2012  repudiated  the claim  on the ground  that driving licence of the driver was fake. In fact, driving licence of the driver was not fake, therefore, he served legal notice upon the Ops, but to no effect. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops due to which he suffered mental and  agony, pain apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complaint  is not maintainable in the present form; that complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint ; that complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and that  this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, factum of insurance of the vehicle of the complainant has not been disputed. It has also been admitted that the complainant lodged the claim regarding the loss suffered by him due to damage of his vehicle in the accident. It has been submitted that surveyor was appointed,  who assessed the loss as Rs.1,00,193/-, but the claim was repudiated as driving licence of the driver of the complainant was found fake. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Ops, affidavit of Sh.B.K.Sarin, Divisional Manager, Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                 There is no dispute between the parties that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the Ops and the same met with an accident during the period of subsistence of the insurance policy. The complainant had lodged claim and the same was repudiated by the Ops on the ground that driving licence of the d river who was driving the vehicle at  the time of accident was found fake.

7.                          The documents Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP6 indicate that investigator of the Ops got the verification report in respect of the driving licence NO.14255 dated 13.8.2010 in favour of Om Parkash son of Prem Chand and as per report of the Licensing Authority no such driving licence was issued in favour of Om Parkash.  The complainant has led no evidence to rebut this documentary evidence of the Ops, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, it stands established that driving licence of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was fake. As the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, the complainant violated the condition of the insurance policy.

 

 8.                Faced with  such situation,  the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that even if there was violation of the condition of the insurance policy, the complainant is entitled to get  compensation  on non standard basis. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon  Amalendu Shaoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ii (2010) CPJ 9 (SC)  wherein  the claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that vehicle was being driven on hire, whereas according to the policy terms, such  use was not permitted and the insurance company was not liable to any compensation  for such unauthorized use . Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the decision  of Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Narayan Prasad  Apparasad Pathak  2006 (II) CPJ 144(NC) wherein guidelines by the Insurance Company about settling claim on non standard basis were considered. As per guideline(iii) in case of breach of warranty condition of the policy including limitation as to use , percentage of settlement was 75% of the admissible claim. Under those circumstances it was held that insurance company cannot  repudiate the claim in toto. Direction was issued to insurance company to pay consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/-  even the compensation claimed was Rs.5.00 lacs.

 

                                      The learned counsel for the complainant also referred to  United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Deen Dayal,  IV(2009) CPJ 218 wherein vehicle meant for carrying goods was carrying  passengers at the time of accident. Keeping in view the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation , the Hon’ble National Commission directed the insurance company to settle the claim on non standard basis and to pay 75% of the loss assessed by the surveyor.

 

9.                                   The proposition of law laid down in the afore discussed authorities squarely covers the facts of the present case as well, wherein there was breach of condition of the policy as the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence  at the time of accident. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is to be settled by the insurance company on non standard basis as per guide lines issued by the General Insurance Corporation.  The surveyor appointed by the OP had assessed the loss as Rs.1,00,193/-, as is evident from his report Ex.O4, therefore, the claim of the complainant is to be settled on non standard basis i.e. upto 75% of the loss/damages.  Thus, there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

10.                             As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of 75% of  Rs.1,00,193/-/- to the complainant  within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which  the settled amount shall fetch ,interest @ 9% per annum  from  the date of expiry of thirty days  till the date of its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:23.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                 (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                Member.          
Present:-       Sh.R.M.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gurmit Singh  Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments not ready. Adjournment requested. The case is now adjourned to 23.11.2015 for arguments.

 

Announced
dated:20.11.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             

 

 

Present:-       Sh.R.M.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gurmit Singh  Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:23.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.