DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 8.2.2016

                                      Decided on: 22.2.2019

Surinder Kaur aged about 61 years, wife of Jaswant Singh, R/o House No.494, St. No.12, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional office, Sai Market, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Office, Oriental House A-25/27, Asf Ali Road, New Delhi through its CMD.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member      

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.K.S.Sidhu,counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                    SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA, PRESIDENT         

1. This is the complaint filed by Surinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that she is the owner of car make Toyota Innova ,Model 2008, bearing registration No.CH-04-E-8881.She got it insured with the OPs vide cover note No.69170 dated 2.5.2014 w.e.f. 5.5.2014 to 4.5.2015.At that time the OPs inspected the vehicle alongwith documents.
3. It is pleaded that on 22.4.2015, Bhupinder son of the complainant was driving the car from Shimla to Patiala. At about 4:PM suddenly Alto car No.HP-53-8446 came from opposite side and hit into her Innova car and caused  damage to the vehicle. Bhupinder Singh was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Compllainant  informed the OPs regarding accident.
4. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to negligence of Alto car. The chip licnece of Bhupinder Singh was valid from 29.4.1991 to 30.4.2019 for LMV, MC, WG only. The OPs deputed surveyor and investigator for assessment of claim. Complainant completed all the formalities and submitted all claim papers.
5. It is alleged that instead of passing the claim, the OPs vide letter dated 18.8.2015 repudiated the claim with the remarks, “having not valid driving licence”.
6. It is further alleged that by not making the payment of genuine claim, the complainant has suffered lot of harassment, mental agony and this act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice.
7. On this  background of the facts the complainant  has filed this complaint with the prayer for direction to the  OPs to pay claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of accident, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and  Rs.25,000/- costs of the litigation. Hence this complaint.
8. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OPs admitted that the car bearing registration No.CH-04-E-8881 is insured with them from 5.5.2014 to 4.5.2015.In further reply the OPs revealed that on receipt of intimation from the complainant regarding accident, Sh.K.K.Singhi, surveyor and loss assessor was detailed. He assessed loss to the vehicle amounting to Rs.88,965/- vide his report dated 31.5.2015 but no claim is payable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The alleged driver Bhupinder son of the complainant was not holding a legal and valid driving licence to drive car make Toyota Innova, which falls in the category of LMV. Hence the driver was required to have LMV driving licnece to drive the same but he was holding driving licnece for motor cycle and car only, at the time of alleged accident on 22.4.2015.OPs have no liability to indemnify the insured as per terms and conditions of the policy. The claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 18.8.2015.
9. It is further pleaded that the complainant tried to mislead the OPs as well as this Forum with malafide intention by producing duplicate licence issued for motor cycle and LMV. On further verification, it was found that the duplicate licence was valid for LMV and it was issued on 25.6.2015 i.e. after the date of accident. No endorsement for LMV was made by Licencing Authority on previous licence No.PB-11/2157/P/1991.Thus the driver was not holding valid and legal driving licence to drive the subject vehicle. All  other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
10. Parties were afforded opportunity for producing their evidence.
11. In support of her case, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of RC, Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy, Ex.C2, copy of driving licence, Ex.C3, copy of driving licence (Smart card),Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 18.8.2015,Ex.C5, copy of certificate, Ex.C6.
12. OPs examined OPW1 Sampuran Singh and tendered into evidence affidavit of Madhu K.Tikoo,Ex.OPA, copy of driving licence, Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 28.7.2015, Ex.OP2, copy of verification report, Ex.OP3, copy of driving licence Ex.OP3/2, copy of driving licence OP3/3, copy of surveyor report, Ex.OP4, copy  of policy schedule, Ex.OP5, copy of claim form, Exs.OP6 and OP7.
13. The complainant has also submitted written arguments. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, carefully.
14. The ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the material facts are not disputed by the OPs. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured. It is not disputed that the vehicle met with an accident on 22.4.2015, which is within covered period. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated vide letter daed 18.8.2015 (Ex.C5). The claim is repudiated only on the ground that the driver was having driving licence for scooter and car only. The complainant has produced on record, copy of certificate, Ex.C6.As per this document the driver was holding licence for motor cycle with gear and LMV. Even otherwise  if, the driver was not holding licence for LMV he was competent to drive the vehicle being holder of driving licence of car. The licence was issued to the driver in the year 1.7.2009.As per rules, the Licencing Authorities were to  issue licence for motor cycle without gear; motor cycle with gear; invalid carriage; light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle; medium passenger motor vehicle; heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle; road roller. They were not to issue licence for any other vehicles such as car or jeep etc. The light motor vehicle includes motor car, tractor, road roller etc. The unladen weight of vehicle was only 2290Kgms. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the driver was not holding licence for LMV is not justified. The repudiation is illegal. In support of this submission, the ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon Mukand Dewangan  versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited IV(2017)CPJ 13(SC) .
15. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has reiterated the stand as taken in the written reply. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the OPs that the complainant has himself relied upon the copy of policy document. It is categorically mentioned in this document that the persons entitle to drive the vehicle will drive. OPs have also produced the copy of policy, Ex.OP5.In this document, it is also categorically mentioned that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, there remains no doubt that the driver was required to be holding valid and effective driving licence. Copy of the registration certificate Ex.C1 shows that the class of the vehicle is LMV  but the driver Bhupinder was holding driving licence only for scooter, motor cycle and motor car. He was not holding driving licence for LMV. As such there was clear cut violation of the policy conditions. The OPs  have justified to repudiate the claim.
16. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the OPs that complainant has tried to prove that the driver was holding licence for LMV but the things well got clarified from Ex.OPW1 Sampuran Singh. He has categorically stated that originally the licence was for motor cycle and car only. Thereafter endorsement for LMV cab has been made in the driving licence on 8.8.2015. The accident took place on 22.4.2015.It further proves that at the time of accident i.e. 22.4.2015, driver Bhupinder Singh was not holding driving licence for LMV. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the OPs. To support this contention, the ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.1413 of 2002, decided on 1.2.2008, in the case of M/s Oriental insurance Company Limited Vs. Dr.S.S.Malhi.
17. We have given carefully consideration to the rival submissions.
18. The admitted facts are that complainant being owner of the vehicle in question got it insured from the OPs. The covered period was from 5.5.2014 to 4.5.2015.The vehicle met with an accident on 22.4.2015 i.e. within covered period. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and the OPs have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 18.8.2015.Claim is repudiated on the ground that on the date of accident driver was not holding valid driving licence to drive Innova. Therefore, the only controversy is whether driver Bhupinder was holding valid driving licence or not.
19. Certificate of registration, Ex.C1 proves that the class of the vehicle in question was LMV car. Admittedly driver Bhupinder Singh was holding driving licnece to drive a car. Of course the class of the vehicle is mentioned as LMV car.
20.  In the case of Mukand Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court thrashed the matter in depth. It was observed that after Amendment made by Act 54 of 1994, the driving licence shall be as per following class:

1. Motor cycle  without gear
2. Motor cycle with gear
3. Invalid carriage
4. Light motor vehicle
5. Transport vehicle
6. -  (h)
   1. road roller
   10. motor vehicle of a specified description

It shows that after the aforementioned amendments, the authorities are to issue driving licence of the aforementioned vehicles description. There, is no separate description for holding driving licence for car. Moreover, the Light Motor Vehicle and Motor Car are defined as under in the Motor Vehicle Act:

2/21:Light Motor Vehicle, means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which  or a motor car or a tractor or a road roller , the un- laden weight of any of which does not exceed 7500kgms.

2/26 Motor Car, means any other vehicle other than a transport vehicle , omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage.

Aforesaid clarifications show that the holder of LMV is entitled to drive a motor car, or a tractor or a road roller, the un laden weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgms. The definition of motor car excludes transport vehicle, Omni bus, road roller, tractor, motor cycle or in valid carriage. The vehicle in question is described as LMV car and the un laden weight of which is 2290 kgms.

21. In the light of the aforementioned judgment and a combined reading of both the definitions also lead to inference that the driver even if, holding a driving licence of car only was competent to drive the vehicle in question i.e. Innova, whichis also mentioned as LMV car. The net conclusion is that the repudiation of the claim is not justified.

22. Now the point for determination is regarding the amount of which the complainant can be held entitled.

    The complainant has claimed Rs.1,50,000/- on account of loss but no surveyor report or other assessment is brought on record. No other documentary evidence is produced on record to prove that the complainant has spent this amount. RatherOPs have produced on record copy of surveyor report, Ex.OP4.As per surveyor report loss assessed was to the tune of Rs.88965/-. There is no challenge to this report. There is no reason to discard the surveyor report. Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to the claim to the tune of Rs.88965/- only. The OPs have illegally repudiated the claim on 18.8.2015, which necessitated filing of this complaint by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to interest @12% per annum on this amount, as compensation from the date of repudiation i.e. 18.8.2015 till payment. The complainant is also held entitled to cost of litigation expenses amounting to Rs.5000/-.

23. Resultantly, we partly accepted the complaint. The OPs are directed to make the payment of Rs.88965/- alongwith interest @12% per annum,as compensation, from the dateof repudiation i.e. 18.8.2015 till payment and costs of Rs.5000/-.Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:22.2.2019       

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President