BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 407 of 2010 Date of Institution: 05.07.2010 Date of Decision : 18.05.2011 Gagan Deep Singh Hora son of Sh.G.S.Hora, Resident of House No.12, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.10-A, First Floor, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Divisional Manager. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI PRESIDING MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.C.D.Jindal, Adv. for the complainant. Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for the OP. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] Briefly stated, the complainant had purchased a new Tata Sumo Grand, which was insured with the OP from 18.3.2008 to 17.3.2009. The said vehicle met with a road accident and was damaged badly. Information regarding the road accident was given to the OP and the vehicle was repaired by Hind Motors India Limited. The Surveyor of the OP had also examined the vehicle and given his report. The complainant duly filed his claim before the OP through Hind Motors for release of Rs.1,95,356/-, which was the amount spent on the repair of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the OP failed to make the payment to Hind Motors within the reasonable time, hence delivery of the vehicle was refused to the complainant by Hind Motors, till the payment was made. Eventually, the complainant himself made payment of repairs to Hind Motors partly in cash and partly through cheque and got his vehicle released. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a request letter dated 23.9.2008 to the OP requesting them to make payment. The OP in reply dated Sept., 2008 sent an intimation that his claim has been repudiated on the ground of “NOT HAVING EFFECTIVE DRIVING LICENCE TO DRIVE THE INSURED VEHICLE”.. The complainant again visited the OP and showed them his original driving licence. He visited the OP many times thereafter since they had told him that his claim would be given, but no payment has been made so far. Meanwhile, the complainant also sought information from the Licensing Authority, Gaziabad, through RTI Application for his driving licence. The relevant reply by which the licence of the complainant has been said to be authentic/genuine is placed as annexure to the complaint. Alleging the action of the OP to be unfair trade practice and harassment to customers, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with a request that the OP be directed to pay the repair amount of Rs.1,95,356/- along with interest and compensation. 2] After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. The OP in their written statement has taken preliminary objection that as per the policy, only the amount assessed by the Surveyor is payable, if there is no violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy. Since, the driving licence of the complainant was not valid, at the time of accident, therefore, as per terms & conditions of the policy and also provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the claim is not payable and the OP has rightly repudiated it. On merits, the OP after admitting the factual position of the case, has reiterated that the licence of the driver was not valid, hence repudiation. OP has also admitted that the Surveyor had been appointed for assessment of the claim, who assessed the claim for an amount of rs.1,83,762/- along with the salvage value of Rs.13,500/-. However, this amount was not payable as the licence of the driver was not valid. Alleging that the complaint has violated the terms & conditions of the policy and the Motor Vehicle Act, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5] The complainant at Ann.C-2 has placed a copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question. The Registration Certificate clearly states as under:- “Registration No.: CH04 C 1978 Vehicle : LMV NT Make : TATA SUMO GRANDE” 6] Annexure C-7 is the copy of the Driving Licence of the driver/complainant. The licence was issued on 25.2.1991 and after revalidation, as per Annexure C-7 was valid till 24.2.2011. This fact has also been admitted by the OP in their letter at Ann.C-6. The relevant portion of their letter is as under:- “As per the Driving License and verification report the holder is authorized to drive M/Cycle & M/Car only and which is valid upto 24/03/2011.” However, they have forgotten to take note of the fact that the licence was not only valid for Scooter, Motorcycle but also for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Hence, the licence of the complainant was valid for LMV also. 7] Annexure C-9 is the letter from Licensing Authority, Gaziabad. As per this letter, the licence has been issued in the name of Sh.Gagandeep Hora son of Sh.G.S.Hora, Resident of #52, Model Town, Gaziabad, for Motorcycle &.L.M.V. on 25.2.1991 and renewed for HTV on 13.6.1996 and as per the endorsement valid till 24.2.2011 for Motorcycle, Scooter and Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). 8] The car in question is a LMV and the licence of the complainant/driver of the vehicle is valid upto 24.2.2011. The contention of the OP is thus invalidated just by considering the above annexures. 9] The Investigator I.P.Gupta, appointed by the OP, submitted his report on 17.5.2008. The relevant extract of the conclusion part of the Investigator’s report is reproduced below:- “I have not verified the driving licence because Licence was issued by Licensing Authority, Gaziabad, so you can verify the same at your end. The DL issued by the Licensing Authority, Gaziabad for Motorcycle and motorcar only. As per this license he can drive only 4+1 seater vehicle. The insured has not renewed the HTV endorsement up till now, so he cannot entitled to drive the vehicle more than 5 seater. No DDR and spot was made by the insured. The vehicle is used as private by the insured.” 10] The authenticity of the Driving License placed on record is already proved by the report of the Licensing Authority, Gaziabad and Registration Certificate of the vehicle clearly shows that it is a LMV vehicle. The licence is valid only till 24.2.2011. Hence the driver/complainant of the vehicle in question held a valid driving licence on the date and time of accident i.e. 22.4.2008.. 11] The complainant has made a request for payment of Rs.1,95,356/- along with interest and compensation, whereas the Surveyor has assessed the liability of the OPs to the tune of Rs.1,83,762/- as per Ann.R-7, but subject to the Driving Licence being valid. The OP has repudiated the claim in Sept., 2008 (Ann.C-6) for which the complainant has filed this complaint. The ground for repudiation is “NOT HAVING EFFECTIVE DRIVING LICENCE TO DRIVE THE INSURED VEHICLE”.. 12] Taking the above facts into consideration, we feel that the action of the OP in disallowing/repudiating the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the licence of the complainant is found to be valid upto 24.2.2011 for Scooter, Motorcycle and Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Hence, the driver of the vehicle i.e. the complainant did possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The complainant has been able to fully prove his case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the OP. The rejection of claim by the OP due to invalid licence of the complainant is unjustified and unacceptable. We therefore allow the complaint in favour of the complainant. However, we only allow the amount as assessed by the Surveyor. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay to the complainant the following amounts:- i) Rs.1,83,762/- as assessed by the Surveyor for loss suffered by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. Sept., 2008 (Ann.C-6) till the amount is actually paid. ii) Rs.7000/- towards cost of litigation. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall pay Rs.1,83,762/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. Sept., 2008 till the date of actual payment besides paying Rs.7000/- as cost of litigation. 13] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 18.05.2011 (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) PRESIDING MEMBER (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Om/-
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.407 OF 2010 | | PRESENT: None Dated the 18th day of May, 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. |
| | | (Madhu Mutneja) | | (Ashok Raj Bhandari) | Member | | Presiding Member |
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | MR. A.R BHANDARI, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
