Haryana

Sonipat

198/2014

SURENDER S/O HAWA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.L. SINGLA

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.198 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:07.08.2014

                                    Date of order:20.08.2015

 

 

Surender son of Hawa Singh, r/o village Kathura, 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. HC Jain, 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.HR69/0766 and the same was insured with the respondent for the period 4.2.2011 to 3.2.2012 and unfortunately on 23.1.2012, the said vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged.  Satish Kumar son of Dev Raj was the driver on the said time at the time of accident and on his statement DD no.22 dated 24.1.2012 was lodged with PS Baroda.  The matter was reported to the respondent.  The surveyor was deputed who inspected the vehicle and allowed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired.  The complainant has spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on the repair of his vehicle.  The complainant submitted all the original bills and documents with the respondent.  The respondent sent a letter dated 29.8.2012 to the complainant and demanded the driving licence of Mahender Singh, whereas the said Mahender Singh was not the driver, rather he was helper-cum-cleaner on the said vehicle.   The respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant only to harass and humiliate him and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.  After perusing the documents provided by the complainant, it was transpired that the goods receipt no.1807 dated 23.2.2012 submitted in support of the claim, contained the name of Mohinder Singh as driver of the insured vehicle.  His original driving licence was not produced by the complainant for verification and due to this, it was presumed that the driver had no driving licence and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.10.2012.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation 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 of the complainant was rightly repudiated.  After perusing the documents provided by the complainant, it was transpired that the goods receipt no.1807 dated 23.2.2012 submitted in support of the claim, contained the name of Mohinder Singh as driver of the insured vehicle.  His original driving licence was not produced by the complainant for verification and due to this, it was presumed that the driver had no driving licence and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.10.2012.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

         But we find no force in this contention of the respondent.  As per the report of surveyor Ashok Kumar Sharma, the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, was Satish son of Dev Raj. The report of the above surveyor is R3.  Similarly Vinod Kumar Wadhwa in his survey report R4 has disclosed in the column of particulars of driver at page no.2  that Satish son of Dev Raj was the driver on the vehicle.

         The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent on the ground that at the time of accident one Mahender Singh was driving the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle has not supplied the particulars of driving licence of Mahender Singh.  Regarding this letter, many letter dated 14.10.2012, 16.8.2012 and 29.8.2012 were written by the respondent insurance company to the complainant.

         We have perused the document C3 i.e. DD Report and the said DD report was lodged by Satish son of Dev Raj.  So, taking into consideration the above said DD report and reports of both the surveyors i.e. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Vinod Kumar Wadhwa, we are of the view that the respondent has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant thereby demanding the driving licence of Mahender Singh, whereas Satish son of Dev Raj was the driver on the vehicle in question at the time of accident.  The surveyor Vinod Kumar Wadhwa has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.68000/-. In our view, the complainant is entitled for the amount as assessed by the surveyor. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.68000/- (Rs.sixty eight thousands) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/-(Rs.three thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

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

         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 20.08.2015