Complaint No: 223 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 09.07.2019.
Date of order: 27.02.2024.
Kamaljit Kaur widow of Rajinder Pal Singh, resident of Village Muglani Chack, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
…........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Business Centre), Sangalpura Road, Samtayog Ashram, Gurdaspur (Mobile No. 97804-57821), through its Branch Manager. Pin Code – 143521.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002, through its Manager.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.S.J.S. Bajwa, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Kamaljit Kaur, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant namely Rajinderpal Singh son of Darshan Singh have purchased one Bajaj CT-100 Motorcycle on dated 25.10.2018 bearing Chassis No. MD2A18AY6JPB92759 and Engine No. DUYPJB85907 having Provisional Registration Mark PB-06-AS-5137 from Raju Auto Mobiles, Dorangla. It is pleaded that the above said motorcycle was insured with the opposite party No. 1 on dated 26.06.2018 having Policy Cover Note No. 560753 for the period started from 26.06.2018 to 25.06.2019. The husband of the complainant after verifying all his documents as well as his Driving License, the opposite parties also promise that the insurance policy cover every damage / loss to the vehicle. It is further pleaded that unfortunately, Rajinderpal Singh i.e. husband of the complainant died on dated 27.08.2018 in road accident at Kathua and his Motorcycle also badly damaged due to accident. The FIR No. 313 dated 27.08.2018, U/s 379/304-A IPC was registered in PS Kathua in this regard. The complainant being his legal heir has immediately informed the opposite parties in this regard by way of application, but instead of accepting the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties after too much delay sent letter dated 05.04.2019 to the complainant by leveling allegations that the deceased do not having driving license and the competent authority has filled claim as “No Claim”. Even the motorcycle was totally got damaged valuing Rs.32,634/- as per policy. It is further pleaded that the complainant was shocked at this attitude of the opposite parties as Rajinderpal Singh have valid driving license at that time in his name which was within the knowledge of the opposite parties, but in order to harass and grab her claim, the opposite parties are using these tactics which is clear cut deficiency of services on their part. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties are not ready to hear any request of the complainant who has already suffered a lot due to this accident. It is further pleaded that there is relation of consumer with the opposite parties and they are bound to give claim to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the claim of insurance policy bearing No. 560753 dated 26.06.2018 which its value i.e. of Rs.32,634/- and they also be burdened to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the deceased husband of the complainant i.e. Rajinderpal Singh was not having valid driving license to drive M.C.W.G (Motor Cycle With Gear) and was driving motorcycle in violation of the terms & conditions of the policy at the time of alleged accident. The competent authority has legally filed the claim as “No Claim” and the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the fact of matter is that the application moved for P.A claim by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 is without any date and the deceased husband of the complainant i.e. Rajinderpal Singh was having driving license valid for LMV, LMV GV and TRANS only which was submitted to the company by the complainant. It is further pleaded that the driving license was not valid for M.C.W.G (Motor Cycle With Gear). The competent authority has rightly and legally filed the claim as “No Claim” and intimation in this regard was given to the complainant on dated 05.04.2019 by the incharge of Oriental Insurance Company, Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that net loss to the motorcycle was assessed by the Surveyor in his report dated 14.03.2019 is Rs.18,758/-. It is further pleaded the answering opposite parties have not caused any mental and physical harassment to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Kamaljit Kaur, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Daulat Ram, (Incharge of Branch Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/6 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties but not filed by the complainant.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that motorcycle bearing No.PB-06-AS-5137 was insured with the opposite parties and during the continuation of policy of insurance, husband of the complainant met with an accident on 27.08.2018 and motorcycle was badly damaged. FIR was also registered but opposite parties had repudiated the claim on baseless grounds which amounts to deficiency in service.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that deceased Rajinderpal Singh was not having valid driving license to drive motorcycle with gear and a such was driving motorcycle in violation of terms and conditions of the policy at the time of accident as such the claim has been rightly repudiated by the opposite parties. Counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon judgment of Madras High Court reported in 2022 ACJ 1592 in case titled as The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Sivalingam and another wherein it has held as under:-
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 10 and 149(2) person acquiring Driving Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles (LMV), driving Two-wheeler - Question as to whether licence to drive LMV is an effective and valid licence to drive two-wheeler? Tribunal held that a person, who was issued with licence to drive LMV can drive a two-wheeler - Validity - As per Section 10 of Motor vehicles Act, a person, who wants to drive a two wheeler, is required to take a separate licence of driving a two wheeler - However, Tribunal overlooking amendment brought into Motor Vehicles Act, held that person who is having light motor vehicle, is entitled to drive a two wheeler - Indisputably, driver of offending vehicle did not possess a licence to drive motorcycle at that relevant time, however, he was issued with a licence of driving LMV - Finding of Tribunal could not be affirmed - Hence, it is set aside - Fact that admittedly deceased was a third party and Insurance Company has proved that vehicle was driven by a person who was not having valid driving license - Insurance Company is to satisfy award amount to claimants and thereafter, recover same from owner of vehicle".
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1, copy of cover note of insurance Ex.C1, copy of provisional registration certificate Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of post-mortem report Ex.C4, copy of driving licence Ex.C5, copy of letter Ex.C6 and copy of death certificate of Rajinder Pal Singh Ex.C7 whereas as opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Daulat Ram Ex.OPW-1,2/1, copy of letter Ex.OP-1,2/2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.OP-1,2/3 and Ex.OP-1,2/4, copy of report of surveyor Ex.OP-1,2/5, copy of recommendation Ex.OP-1,2/6,
12. It is admitted fact that motorcycle bearing No.PB-06-AS-5137 was insured with the opposite parties w.e.f. 26.06.2018 to 25.06.20019. It is further admitted fact that said motorcycle met with an accident on 27.08.2018 while being driven by Rajinder Pal Singh i.e. husband of the complainant. It is further admitted fact that claim lodged by the complainant has been repudiated as 'No Claim' by the opposite parties. The only disputed issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether the repudiation of the claim on the ground of invalid driving licence is justified or not.
13. Perusal of driving licence Ex.C5 shows that said licence has been issued for class of vehicle which mentioned as LMV-GV, TRANS, LMV which clearly shows that said licence is valid for light motorcycle vehicle and it does not authorize the driver to drive the two-wheeler with gear. As such we have no hesitation in holding that deceased was not having the valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle at time of accident. We are also relied upon judgment referred above on similar facts. From the evidence on record and by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court we are of the view that repudiation of the claim was totally justified and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
14. Accordingly, present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 27, 2024 Member.
*YP*
