Punjab

Sangrur

CC/437/2018

Bikar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Gurjit Kaur

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR                                            

               

                                                Complaint No.  437

                                                Instituted on:    15.10.2018

                                                Decided on:       07.02.2020

 

Bikar Singh Cheema S/o Bhura Singh, resident of House No.516 Street No.3 Dashmesh Avenue Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :               Shri Darshan Gupta, Adv.

For OP                     :               Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                             Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

1.             Shri Bikar Singh Cheema, complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his car bearing registration number PB-13-X-3101 vide insurance cover note CHD-d302032 and policy number 233502/31/2018/445   for the period from 5.7.2017 to 4.7.2018. Further case of the complainant is that on 19.1.2018 the said car was going from Kheri to Gagarhpur and the car was being driven by Harinder Kumar son of Shakti Kumar at his normal speed and suddenly a stray bull came before the car and the car struck with a tree and damaged badly. The complainant gave the intimation to the OP and the OP appointed Yashwinder Singh surveyor and thereafter estimate of loss was prepared to the tune of Rs.77,000/-. The said surveyor got all the require documents and obtained signatures of the complainant.  On the assurance of the surveyor the complainant got repaired the vehicle and spent Rs.77000/- on the repair of the vehicle.   Further case of the complainant is that the OP vide letter dted 19.3.2018 denied the claim saying that the driving license of Harinder Kumar had expired on 10.11.2017 which is wrong one and the driving license of driver Harinder Kumar was valid upto 13.3.2020. As such, it is stated that the claim has wrongly been denied by the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.77,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, that disputed questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complaint is false, frivolous, malafide, mischievous, bad in law and that the complainant ha not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits,  it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP for the period from 5.7.2017 to 4.7.2018 It is further stated that the complainant gave intimation dated 27.1.2018 whereas the accident has been alleged to have been taken place on 19.1.2018 and the complainant has failed to get the spot survey of the vehicle. It has been denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.77,000/- on the repair of the vehicle.  The estimate given by the complainant is of exaggerated amount and it is not possible that the actual expenses will incurred equal to the amount mentioned in the estimate.  It is denied that the driving license of the driver of the car namely Harinder Kumar was valid upto 13.3.2020 whereas the license for car was valid upto 10.11.2017 only.  As such, it is stated that no claim is payable to the complainant. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the claim with special cost.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/10 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his car bearing registration number PB-13-X-3101 vide insurance cover note CHD-d302032 and policy number 233502/31/2018/445   for the period from 5.7.2017 to 4.7.2018. Further case of the complainant is that on 19.1.2018 the said car was going from Kheri to Gagarhpur and the car was being driven by Harinder Kumar son of Shakti Kumar at his normal speed and suddenly a stray bull came before the car and the car struck with a tree and damaged badly. The complainant gave the intimation to the OP and the OP appointed Er.Yashwinder Goyal, surveyor and thereafter estimate of loss was prepared to the tune of Rs.77,000/-. The said surveyor got all the require documents and obtained signatures of the complainant.  On the assurance of the surveyor the complainant got repaired the vehicle and spent Rs.77000/- on the repair of the vehicle.   Further case of the complainant is that the OP vide letter dated 19.3.2018 denied the claim saying that the driving license of Harinder Kumar had expired on 10.11.2017 which is wrong one and the driving license of driver Harinder Kumar was valid upto 13.3.2020. As such, it is stated that the claim has wrongly been denied by the OP.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP for the period from 5.7.2017 to 4.7.2018. It is further stated that the complainant gave intimation dated 27.1.2018 whereas the accident has been alleged to have been taken place on 19.1.2018 and the complainant has failed to get the spot survey of the vehicle. It has been denied that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.77,000/- on the repair of the vehicle.  The estimate given by the complainant is of exaggerated amount and it is not possible that the actual expenses will incurred equal to the amount mentioned in the estimate.  It is contended further that Harinder Kumar driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license as such the claim has rightly been denied.

7.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his car bearing registration number PB-13-X-3101 for the period from 5.7.2017 to 4.7.2018 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.8,142/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured comprehensively for Rs.2,90,000/- only.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question damaged badly and suffered huge loss during the subsistence of the insurance policy and it is further not in dispute that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP about the accident, who appointed surveyor to assess the loss. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite submission of all the documents to the OP, the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the claim is not payable as the driver of the car Shri Harinder Kumar was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. But, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the OP is not liable to pay the claim amount.  Further to support this contention, the complainant has cited Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Vijay Kumar Dubey and another 2012(2) CPJ 103, wherein it has been clearly held that a person having a license for heavy vehicles is entitled to drive light motor vehicle but no vice versa and further held that there is no breach of conditions of policy and the insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation.  Though the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs.77,000/- from the OP being the loss of the car in question but the OP has place do record the survey report of Er. Yashwinder Goyal, Ex.OP-3 as per which the loss payable to the complainant is Rs.49,298/-.  As such, we shall go with the report of the surveyor and hold that the OP is liable to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.49,298/-.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.49,298/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 15.10.2018 till realisation in full. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment. This order shall be complied with by OPs within a period of forty five days of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

9.             This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because posts of President and Lady Member are lying vacant since 7.8.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.                       

                Pronounced.

                February 7, 2020.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                   Member                 President