Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 187.
Instituted on : 21.03.2017.
Decided on : 19.03.2019.
Rajinder, age 40 year, son of Sh. Jiwan Ram, Resident of Village Bedwa, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Mrs. Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:1.
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a registered owner of Truck bearing registration No. HR-28G-1664 and the same was insured with the respondent for a period from 07.03.2015 to 06.03.2016 vide policy No. 35380031140100010527 against an insured amount of Rs. 8,30,000/-. That on 17.05.2015 at Sumerpur Bye-Pass, Rajasthan, the said truck met with an accident and was damaged badly i.e. total loss. An FIR No.163 dated 17.05.2015 was also lodged in PS Sumerpur, District Pali under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. Complainant informed the respondent regarding the damages of the truck and respondent appointed a surveyor who duly inspected the vehicle in question. The complainant furnished all the required documents/particulars including the cash memos of repairing as demanded by the respondent and the respondent assured the complainant that the claim amount against the damages of the truck will be paid within one month and the complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,20,000/- on account of repairing charges etc. It is alleged that the respondent is avoiding the payment in spite of the facts that the complainant furnished all the required documents to the respondent. That the complainant also served a legal notice to the respondent through his counsel but respondent did not pay any heed and did not make the payment to the complainant. That the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the alleged amount Rs.3,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual realization and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that Mr. Deepak Kumar was holding D.L manually typed copy from typewriter, which is not valid and effective at the time of alleged loss i.e. dated 17.05.2015. All D/L other than smart card shall be treated as cancelled after 1st December 2014 per public information dated 1 Aug 2014 issued by Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland whereas alleged loss took place on 17.05.2015. As per survey report of Sh. Anil Kumar Sehgal, the total loss was assessed as per terms and conditions of policy was Rs. 58,000/-. The claim has been settled as per terms and conditions of policy and law and a repudiation letter dated 09.11.2015 was send through registered post to the complainant which was self explanatory. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite party.
3 Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.AW1, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and has closed his evidence on dated 31.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on 15.02.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that the respondent officials have not made any objection in their written statement or affidavit that there was not a valid and effective driving licence of Mr. Deepak Kumar on the date of incident but the major objection is a notification which was issued by the Nagaland Govt. that all the D.L. other than Smart Card shall be treated as cancelled after December 2014 as per public information Dated 01.08.2014 issued by Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland. In the present case, the respondent failed to prove that this notification has been circulated in all over India where the complainant resides. If any notification issued in a particular area i.e. in Nagaland, the sole purpose of this notification does not fulfill. The perusal of report Ex.R7 itself shows that Mr. Deepak Kumar has a license which was issued on 28.09.2009 and the same was valid upto 27.09.2015 whereas as per the complainant, incident had taken place on dated 17.05.2015. Meaning thereby, when the license was issued by the Licensing Authority in the year 2009, no such notification was in force and as per letter Ex.A7 and written statement filed by the opposite party, the Driving licenses were issued on Smart card w.e.f. 30.10.2009 whereas the D.L. of the driver Deepak was issued on 27.09.2015. No other document has been placed on record to prove that alleged notification/Public Information was published in any Newspaper for the general public. The complainant was having a chance to convert his D.L. into Smart Card at the time of renewal i.e. 27.09.2015 whereas the accident had taken place on 17.05.2015 i.e. before the date of renewal. Hence it is not proved that the alleged D.L was invalid. As such repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor as per his report Ex.R7 amounting to Rs.58000/- to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.58000/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.21.03.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.03.2019
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
