Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/73/2017

Parvesh Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Bhardwaj Adv.

04 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Parvesh Khan s/o Yaseem Khan r/o 709/4, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 109-11, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

Argued by:

 Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant

                 Sh.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the OP.

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-68-B-7655 of the complainant, comprehensively insured with the OP vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C-1) for the period from 09.10.2015 to 08.10.2016 for the IDV of Rs.10.26 lacs, being driven by Sh.Karnail Singh met with an accident near Shahabd.  On intimation to the OP regarding the accident, Sh.Jagdish Chand was appointed as spot surveyor.  He got the vehicle in question repaired by incurring a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs.  It has further been averred that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 02.03.2016 on the ground that  Sh.Karnail Singh, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident holds a driving license which expired on 04.09.2015 before the date of loss i.e. 12.12.2015 and thus, the driving license was invalid at the time of the accident.  According to the complainant, the driving license of Sh.Karnail Singh (Annexure C-5) was valid till (NT) 06.04.2020 and valid till (T) 30.12.2018 and as such the claim was wrongly repudiated by the OP.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement,  the factual matrix of the case has not been denied by the OP.  It has further been pleaded that the driving license of Sh.Karnail Singh was expired on 04.09.2015 and as such the same was not valid on the date of the accident i.e. 12.12.2015 and as such the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 02.03.2016 keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the surveyor report.  It has further been pleaded that information with regard to the renewal of driving license of Sh.Karnail Singh which expired on 04.09.2015 was not supplied to the OP and as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
4.         We have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides  and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
5.         Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was comprehensively insured at the time of the accident with the OP.
6.         The main plea of the OP is that the driving license of Sh.Karnail Singh was not valid on the date of the accident and as such the claim was rightly repudiated keeping in view the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 
7.         However, this plea of the OP has been falsified by the learned Counsel for the OP by placing on record a copy of the driving license of Sh.Karnail Singh issued on 28.11.2000 from the Licensing Authority, RTO, Kathua as Annexure C-5.  A perusal of Annexure C-5 clearly proves beyond doubt that the driving license of Sh.Karnail Singh was valid for non-transport vehicle till 06.04.2020 and for transport vehicle till 30.12.2018. Whereas the accident of the vehicle in question took place on 12.12.2015 meaning thereby that the same was valid and effective on the date of the accident of the vehicle.  Moreover, no contrary evidence to the same has been led by the opposite side.  Thus, the OP is proved to be deficient in rendering the services by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. Otherwise also, the OP should have checked the validity and effectiveness of the driving license from the concerned licensing authority before arriving at any conclusion.
8.         In Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
   1. “Insurance Act, 1938 – S.64-UM – Surveyor/ Loss assessor’s report – Weightage to be given – Held, though not the last word, yet there must be legitimate reason for departing from report – No infirmity found in Surveyor’s report and therefore held, Insurance Company rightly admitted claim as per the report.”
9.         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) has held:-

“….Surveyor’s report being important piece of evidence, to be given weight and relied upon, unless proved unreliable.”

10.         In case Dabirudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that:-

“…….Surveyor’s report being important document, cannot be easily brushed aside.”

11.         In reported in II (2013) CPJ 719 (NC) it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the report of surveyor is an important document and its finding has to be relied on unless it is controverted or contradicted by evidence.  In view of the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the complainant is held entitled to the sum of Rs.68,000/-  as assessed by the surveyor in his report dated 10.02.2016, Annexure R-4 instead of Rs.1.50 lacs as claimed by him.
12.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed as under ;-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs.68,000/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation letter i.e. 02.03.2016 till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OP, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No (ii) shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii).

13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

04/12/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER