DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 113 of 11.04.2008<br /> Decided on :22-07-2008 <br /> <br /> Harnek Singh S/o Sh. Hem Raj Singh, R/o Village Poolha, Tehsil & District Bathinda..<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 6 through its Managing Director/Chairman.<br /> 2.The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No. 109-110-111 Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.<br /> 3.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bank Street, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ved Parkash Khurmi, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 22,312/- alongwith interest @18% P.A. from the date of accident till payment; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass is as under :<br /> 3. He is owner of vehicle Tata Dicor-Ex-III having registration No. PB-03P-9743 which was purchased by him for his personal use. It was got comprehensively insured with the opposite parties vide Cover Note No. 54303 dated 12.2.07. Cover note valid w.e.f. 12.2.07 to 11.2.08 was issued. On 14.1.08 his relative namely Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Hartej Singh R/o Village Poohla was driving this vehicle and was going from Village Poohla to Dhodhar to attend some marriage alongwith some other persons. When they were going from village Khai to Fathu, suddenly vehicle had rammed against a neem tree. It was badly damaged from the front side. Intimation of the accident was given to opposite party No. 3. Sh. Vikas Jain was deputed as surveyor. He had inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 directed him to get the vehicle repaired. Assurance was given that claim would be reimbursed. Accordingly, he got prepared the estimate from Krishna Autos, 40' Road, Namdev Marg, Bathinda on 28.1.08 which assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 22,312/-. Opposite parties had given the assurance to pay the amount. He was asked to get the vehicle repaired. Accordingly, he got it repaired from M/s. Modi Maruti Centre, G.T. Road, Bathinda. Claim was lodged with the opposite parties. All the documents were submitted. Opposite parties continued putting off the matter regarding the claim on one pretext or the other. In the meantime Insurance period of the vehicle had expired on 11.2.08. He got the vehicle insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 12.2.08 to 11.2.09 due to which opposite parties felt annoyed and illegally and arbitrarily rejected the lawful claim as no claim vide letter dated 9.2.08 much after 11.2.08 by mentioning back date i.e. 9.2.08 on the ground that driver was not holding valid driving licence. He asserts that Sh. Ranjit Singh driver was holding valid driving licence No. 69483 dated 24.7.98 which was issued by District Transport Officer, Bathinda and was valid upto 23.7.03. Thereafter it was got renewed w.e.f. 23.7.03 to 21.7.08. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 4. In the reply of the complaint submitted by the opposite parties legal objections have been taken by them to the effect that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action to file it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and that only civil court has got the jurisdiction as elaborate and detailed evidence is required; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant is not consumer and he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct. They admit that complainant is the owner of the vehicle and it was comprehensively insured. Intimation of the accident was given. Surveyor was appointed. Claim was payable as per rules and regulations. Since Ranjit Singh was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident, claim was not payable and has been rightly repudiated. They deny that repudiation has been made for the reason that he got the Insurance of the vehicle from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. They do not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Cover Note No. 54303 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of R.C.of vehicle (Ex. C-3), photocopy of Estimate (Ex. C-5), photocopies of Bills No. 459 and 1240 (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7) respectively, photocopy of letter dated 9.2.08 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of Motor Vehicle Cover Note (Ex. C-9) and another affidavit of complainant (Ex. C-10).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Dr. J L Ahuja, Sr. D.M. (Ex. R-1) and photocopy of Survey Report (Ex. R-2) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that vehicle in question was comprehensively insured with the opposite parties. Insurance Cover Note copy of which is Ex. C-2 for the period from 12.2.07 to 11.208. It had met with an accident. Intimation of the accident was given to opposite party No. 3. Sh. Vikas Jain was appointed as surveyor who gave report dated 31.1.08 copy of which is Ex. R-2. Claim was lodged with the opposite Insurance Company. It was repudiated on 9.2.08 vide letter copy of which is Ex. C-8 as no claim on the ground that licence of Ranjit Singh driver of the vehicle was not valid at the time of accident.<br /> 9. Mr. Khurmi, learned counsel for the complainant argued that Ranjit Singh was driving the vehicle on the day of accident i.e. 14.1.08 and his driving licence copy of which is Ex. C-4 was genuine and valid for driving the vehicle in question. Claim has been illegally and arbitrarily repudiated by the opposite parties as no claim.<br /> 10. Mr.Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that claim has been rightly held as no claim as Ranjit Singh was not possessing valid driving licence at he time of accident as he was authorised through driving licence copy of which is Ex. C-4 to drive scooter and car only whereas vehicle in question is LMV (7 seater) and as such he should have LMV licence.<br /> 11. We have considered the respective arguments. <br /> 12. Onus is upon the Insurer to establish that the repudiation of the claim made by it is justified. Copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question is Ex. C-3. Its seating capacity is 6+1 (including driver). Its unladen weight has not been recorded. It being so, it cannot be said that its unladen weight exceeds 7500 Kgs. In other words, it was less than 7500 Kgs. This vehicle does not fall within the definition of Transport Vehicle or Omni Bus. Rather it is motor car as has been defined in Section 2(26) of the Motor Vehicle's Act. Accordingly Ranjit Singh who has been authorised through driving licence to drive car was competent to drive it. Mere fact that alphabets LMV have not been incorporated in the licence is no ground to hold that he was not possessing valid driving licence for driving this vehicle particularly when it is motor car. In this view of the matter, we get support from the authorities United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.Shri Harmesh Singh 2004(1) CPC 28, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mahant Mukand Raj 2004(1) CPC 262, Solartech S-U Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2006(1) CPC 353 and Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2000(1) CPC 14. Accordingly we hold that claim has been illegally and arbitrarily repudiated by the opposite Insurance Company as no claim. Repudiation is liable to be set aside and as such this is set aside. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 13. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that he got prepared estimate regarding damage to the vehicle from Krishna Autos and copy of the same is Ex. R-5. According to this estimate loss has been assessed to the tune of Rs. 22,312/-. Complainant also got repaired the vehicle from Krishna Autos and purchased parts from M/s. Modi Maruti Centre as is evident from copy of the retail Invoice and cash memo which are Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-7 respectively. He further submitted that complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 22,312/-. Mr Nayyar argued that report of the surveyor, copy of which is Ex. R-2 is worth placing credence. After considering the rival contentions, we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any defect in the report of the surveyor. So far as Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7 are concerned, matter regarding depreciation of the replaced parts has not been considered in them. Surveyor has considered the depreciation which is 50% on rubber parts. He has also considered the price of the parts and labour charges as per local market rates at the time of survey. Report of the surveyor is an important document and it cannot be thrown to the winds without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons. We find no sufficient reasons to reject it. Accordingly, it is accepted. Surveyor has assessed net loss as Rs. 9232/- Value of the salvage has been considered by him as R,s. 100/-. There is no evidence before us that the salvage has been deposited by the complainant. Accordingly, complainant becomes entitled to receive Rs. 9131/- (Rs. 9232/- - Rs. 100/-) alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 15.4.08 (the date calculated on expiry of three months period from information, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course) till realization. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment.There is no case to allow it in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. Out of compensation and interest, one can be allowed.<br /> 14. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Pay Rs. 9131/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 15.4.08 till payment.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 22-07-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />