Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/244/2022

M/s Vijay Super Service Station Through Mr. Ashok Kumar (Proprietor) - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Harminder Dhankhar

06 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                                                   Complaint No.: 244 of 2022.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 21.11.2022.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 06.06.2024.

M/s Vijay Super Service Station through Mr. Ashok Kumar (Proprietor) registered office at NH-334B, Charkhi Dadri to Delhi Road, village Matanhail, Jhajjar, Haryana-124106 through its Proprietor.

                                                                              ….Complainant.

                                                                                       

                                      Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office at Oriental House, P. B. No. 7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Jawahar Building, Opp. “D” Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.      

…...Opposite Parties.

 

                                 COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                             CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Harminder Dhanker, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER: -

 

                   The brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s firm is owner of vehicle bearing No. HR63E-0408 and the same was insured with the OPs vide cover note/policy No. 261204/31/2022/1434 for the period w.e.f. 1.12.2021 to 30.11.2022.  It is averred that the on 16.6.2022 the insured vehicle met with an accident and completely damaged and information about accident was given to the OPs.  It is further averred that the officials of the OPs inspected the vehicle at the spot and after that all the documents were submitted to the OPs for the purpose of claim.  It is further averred that the claim No.260013/31/2023/00030798 has been issued by the OPs.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question was taken to M/s Ashok Leyland Authorized dealer at Rohtak for repair and the officials of the OPs visited the workshop for survey.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question has been got repaired and invoice of Rs.3,15,000/- against repair charges has been handed over to the surveyor deputed by the OPs.  It is further averred that on receiving letter dated 8.8.2022 issued by the OPs, the complainant‘s firm supply a copy of training certificate pertains to carry hazardous substance, which was valid at that time.  It is further averred that the OPs have again sent a letter dated 16.8.2022 demanding valid DL, which was already supplied by the complainant vide reply dated 10.8.2022.  It is further alleged that the OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant despite several requests.  It is further averred that a legal notice dated 16.9.2022 was sent to the OPs for settling the claim, but to no effect.  The OP company has wrongly and illegally not paid the genuine claim of the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant has requested many times to the OPs to pay the claim, but to no effect. Hence, non-payment of claim by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the complainant’s firm has suffered the mental tension, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP filed the contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua maintainability; locus standi; cause of action & concealment of material facts. On merits, it is averred that insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by not informing the OPs about the accident of the insured vehicle.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question falls in hazardous category and was being used to carry hazardous substance, but its driver, namely Satish Kumar did not hold a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, as endorsement of the DL about hazardous substance had expired on 19.6.2021.  It is further averred that vide letter dated 8.8.2022 the complainant’s firm was asked to supply valid DL of driver Satish Kumar, but insured failed in supplying the valid and effective DL.  It is further averred that pre-repudiation letter was issued to the insured, which was received to the insured on 5.9.2022.  It is further averred that finding no alternative, as per Section 14 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rule 9 and Section 132 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and as per terms & conditions of the insurance policy, it is mandatory to have an endorsement of hazardous goods in the driving license.  It is further averred that finding no alternative the claim of the complainant’s firm was repudiated vide letter dated 19.9.2022 for want of valid of DL for driving hazardous goods vehicle.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C8 and closed the evidence. 

4.                 On the other hand, the OPs have failed to place on record any evidence in support of their case other than written statement and the evidence of the OPs has been closed vide order dated 5.3.2024.

5.                We have heard ld. counsels for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                The only plea taken by the OP company is that driver Satish Kumar, who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident does not possess a valid DL for driving hazardous goods carrying vehicle, as his DL for driving hazardous goods vehicle was expired on 19.6.2021.  The insured was requested by the OPs to supply the valid DL of Satish Kumar, but the same could not be supplied by the insured.  The complainant’s firm has placed on record copy of a Certificate dated 25.8.2021 for three days training given w.e.f. 23.8.2021 to 25.8.2021 by M/s Swami Seva Associates, Vadodara.  From the bare perusal of the Certificate Ex. CW1/4, it is clear that it is a certificate for three days training and not driving license for driving hazardous goods carrying vehicle.  In our view, it is mandatory for a driver of hazardous goods carrying vehicle to have a valid DL for driving hazardous goods vehicle.  But in the case in hand, complainant’s firm has failed in placing on record such a valid DL of driver Shri Satish Kumar.  Therefore, presumption must be drawn against the complainant and in favour of the OP.  Hence, the genuineness of the above claim has not been established on record.

 7.               Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the OPs have rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.