DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No | : | 467 OF 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 28.07.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 30.11.2011 |
Sukhbeer Kaur, wife of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, resident of Village Mazri, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, Punjab. ---Complainant V E R S U S The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office; Surender Building, SCO No.109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Divisional Manager. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Vikram Singh, Adv. for the Complainant. Sh. Vartika H. Singh, Adv. for the OP. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP for short), on the grounds that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Deep Indane Gas Service and the same is being operated for earning her livelihood. The complainant also owns a Mahindra Pickup Truck, which comes under LMV Category and is registered vide Registration No.PB-65F-1469. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured vide Cover Note No.279031 valid from 17.06.2009 to 16.06.2010. The said vehicle met with an accident on 2.10.2009 and suffered a swear damage. A DDR No.13 dated 2.10.2009 was lodged. 2. The said vehicle was got repaired and the complainant’s total insurance claim came out to be Rs.1,33,567/-. In the meantime, OPs vide their letter dated 17.03.2010 intimated the complainant that her claim has been approved for an amount of Rs.1,00,175/- on non standard basis due to non endorsed driving license of the driver for carrying hazardous goods. The same is annexed as Annexure C-4. The copy of DDR, Driving License and Survey report are annexed as Annexures C-1, C-2 and C-3 respectively. 3. The complainant is aggrieved of the alleged wrong assessment of her claim on the ground that there was no breach of terms and conditions of the policy and hence, has a right to total reimbursement of her claim. The complainant has prayed for seeking direction of this Forum for:- (i) release of Rs.33,392/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim till its payment; (ii) pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on grounds of mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. On notice, OP has filed their version/ written statement and has contested the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections stating that the complainant does not fall under the definition of a ‘consumer’ and the present complaint should not be treated under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same deserves to be dismissed as not being maintainable in the present form. OPs further state that it is mandatory under Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 to have a valid driving license for carriages, carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. In the absence of such a license, the claim of the complainant was rightly approved for Rs.1,00,175/- on non standard basis as the driving license of Rashpal Singh, the actual driver, at the time of happening of the accident did not carry the required endorsement. It is also stated that as the complainant had already consented for the said amount by signing the Discharge Voucher annexed as Annexure R-1, hence, she is barred to bring this dispute once again. 5. On merits, the OP has repeated the above contentions and allegations stating that the complainant after having signed the discharge receipt had already subrogated all her rights and remedies to the company in respect of the concerned loss/damages. Therefore, after accepting the payment in full and final settlement, the complaint is barred by her own consent. It is surprising that in Para No.9 of its version, OP has categorically stated that in the present case, it is not so that the absence of endorsement has in any way contributed to the happening of the accident or not. We do not understand the meaning of the above mentioned lines whether the OP is denying or itself admitting to the fact that the endorsement of the license is a valid ground for assessing the claim of the complainant on non standard basis or not. The OP has vociferously and repeatedly taken the same plea while contesting the claim of the complainant. 6. The OP pray for the dismissal of the present complaint on the ground that there is no deficiency in service on its part as the OP has completely followed the process as laid down under the Insurance Rules. 7. Parties led their respective evidences. 8. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OP, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:- 9. The present complaint completely hinges on the fact that whether the driver of the vehicle in question carried a valid driving license with the required endorsement for hazardous goods. In the present case, the driver Rashpal Singh who was driving the said vehicle in question at the time of happening of the accident, though carried a valid and effective L.M.V. License No.83691/05 valid up to 3.8.2011 vide Renewal No.0032653 dated 4.8.2008 and the same was reissued by License Issuing Authority, Haryana as mentioned in the Surveyor’s Report (Annexure C-3). The surveyor’s report also mentions that the particulars of the vehicle as well as the driver were checked and found in order in original. The surveyor report also does not mention any reason for assessment of the claim of the complainant to be assessed on non standard basis as under the column ‘Remark’ on running Page 27 of the file does not mention any such comment. 10. However, the complainant while adducing evidence in her favour has brought a Circular of the OP (which we mark as Annexure Z) wherein the same matter was discussed at the G.M(T) meeting of the OPs held on 27.8.1997 and on the basis of the decision taken in the said meeting, an advice was circulated with regard to the settlement of Motor O.D. Claims pertaining to vehicle carrying hazardous goods. The two clauses of the said circular reads as follows:- “1. Where the State Govt. does not have facilities for training the concerned category of drivers, all claims should be settled in full for 100% assessed amount irrespective of whether or not the driving licence contains any endorsement for the driving of vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 2. Where the State Govt. has facilities for such training and yet the driver driving the vehicle with hazardous goods either does not have the necessary endorsement on his licence or has not undertaken such training, claims should be settled on non-standard basis upto 75% of the assessed loss.” 11. In the light of above two clauses, the OP was wrong to assess the claim of the complainant under Clause 2 whereas the same was qualified to have been treated under Clause 1. Thus we feel, OP in deficient in service for not having followed the proper procedure as laid down by its own rules and regulations. 12. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to release an amount of Rs.33,392/- along with an interest @7% per annum from the date of the settlement of the claim till its payment. The complainant is also awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 13. The OP is directed to comply with the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which the amount of Rs.33,392/- would attract interest @18% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th November 2011. Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 467 OF 2010 | | PRESENT: None Dated the 30th day of November, 2011 | O R D E R Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. |
| | | (Jaswinder Singh Sidhu) | | (Madhu Mutneja) | Member | | Member |
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
