Haryana

Sonipat

199/2014

RAJENDER S/O SHIVAJI - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.L. SINGLA

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.199 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:07.08.2014

                                    Date of order:27.08.2015

 

 

Rajender son of Shivji resident of village Mirjapur Kheri, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

                   VERSUS

 

 

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Rohtak road, Gohana distt. Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

 

 ……..Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RL Singla, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Surender Malik, Adv. for respondent.

 

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle no.HR11H/0384 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period 16.1.2013 to 15.1.2014 and unfortunately on 21.4.2013, the said vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged. Hari Om son of Rajender was the driver on the said vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant intimated the respondent regarding the accident.  The surveyor was deputed and the complainant was allowed to get repair his vehicle.  The complainant spent Rs.1,80,000/- on the repair of the vehicle.  But the respondent repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground “due to absence of effective driving licence at the time of accident”.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the claim was rightly repudiated as the complainant himself has breached the terms and conditions of the policy as he allowed his son to drive the vehicle who was not having any valid and effective driving licence.  The driving licence of Hari Om has already expired on 6.11.2011 and after that the same has not been renewed.  Hence on the day of accident on 21.4.2013, the DL of Hari Om driver was not effective.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the claim was rightly repudiated as the complainant himself has breached the terms and conditions of the policy as he allowed his son to drive the vehicle who was not having any valid and effective driving licence.  The driving licence of Hari Om has already expired on 6.11.2011 and after that the same has not been renewed.  Hence on the day of accident on 21.4.2013, the DL of Hari Om driver was not effective.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

         The respondent has placed on record R2 verification report of Driving licence of Hari Om.  But R2 is the photo copy and not the original document.  But this report is not supported by any affidavit of the surveyor.  So, in our view, the surveyor/investigator report without affidavit has little evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

 

         R3 is the report of surveyor, who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,29,320/-.     On the contrary, the complainant has placed on record the document JN-1 i.e. report regarding driving licence of Hari Om which is issued by RTO Nagaland. As per this report, the licence was valid w.e.f. 7.11.2008 to 6.11.2011 which was later-on renewed  on 4.1.2012 upto 6.11.2014.  The date of accident in the case in hand is 21.4.2013. So, as per this report, it is proved that on the date of accident, the driver Hari Om was having valid and effective driving licence. 

         Now coming to the quantum, as to for what amount the complainant is entitled to?

         The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,29,320/- after deducting excess clause and expected salvage value was to the tune of Rs.19500/-.  Accordingly, after deducting the salvage value to the tune of Rs.19500/- from the amount of Rs.1,29,320/-, the respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousands for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 27.08.2015