DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PATIALA
Consumer Complaint No.381 Dt.06/10/2017 Decided on: 01/10/2020
M/s Maa Luxmi Devi Agro Pvt. Ltd. Village Nanhera, Shambhu Road, Rajpura, District Patiala, through its Director Amit Bansal son of Sh. Jagjiwan Kumar Bansal, Resident of House No.3364, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.
…...Complainant
Versus
- The United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Regd. & Head Office, 24 Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its
Managing Director.
- The United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office,
Post Box No.66, Opposite Polo Ground, Sai Market, Ankur Bhawan, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. M.P.S. Sahi Adv. counsel for complainant. Sh. D. P.S. Anand Adv. counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT
1. M/s Maa Luxmi Devi Agro Pvt. Ltd. (complainant) through its Director Amit Bansal has filed this complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely The United India Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Brief facts of the case is that complainant Company is the owner of vehicle make TATA LPT 909 truck bearing registration No.PB-11-CB-1044 having Chassis No.MAT454641G7G13243 and Engine No.497TC92GTY829329. Complainant has earning his as well as family’s livelihood through this truck. Complainant got his vehicle fully insured with OP No.2 vide policy No.1110003116P107984034 valid from 16/9/2016 to 15/09/2017 by paying a premium of Rs.17,923/-. On 24.4.2017 vehicle met with an accident within the limits of P.S. Dharampur District Solan (HP) at about 1.30PM FIR No.0043 dt.24/04/2017 U/s 279/337/304-A IPC P.S. Dharampur, District Solan (HP). Complainant gave intimation about the accident to the OP and as per their instructions, the Spot survey was got conducted from JS Chauhan Valuer, Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor and complainant paid a sum of Rs.1800/- on 24/4/2017.
It is alleged that as per the instructions of OPs, complainant parked the vehicle at M/s Anand Motor Workshop, TATA Authorized Service Station Near Gagan Chowk, G T Road, Rajpura, District Patiala. Toeing receipt of Vicky crane service for a sum of Rs.10,000/- is placed on the file. Surveyor who visited the Service Station, issued instructions to the service station for the repair of the vehicle. The OPs told the complainant to first clear the bill for the repair to the Authorized Service Station and thereafter OPs will reimburse the bills. After repair when the complainant approached OP No.2 to make the payment of the service station for repair, then OP No.2 told the complainant first to clear the bill amount of the company from its own funds and they assured the complainant that after getting sanctioned the claim of the total bill amount the payment will be reimbursed to the complainant. Then complainant after clearing all dues, submitted the bill for a sum of Rs.5,54,959/- along with requisite documents to the OPs but OPs have not reimbursed the amount and was delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally OP No.1 issued a letter vide Ref. No.DOP/MOTOR/2017/6931 dt.24/08/2017 through which OPs have wrongly, illegally and in arbitrary manner has repudiated the claim of the complainant by giving false and fabricated reasons. It is alleged that at the time of accident Pawan Kumar son of Arjan Nath of village Sehra Tehsil Rajpura Distt. Patiala was driving the truck, who was having a valid driving Licence for transport. It is further alleged that Pawan Kumar had deposited Rs.70/- as user charges to get licence extended, verification to this effect is also issued by RTA Patiala. The DL of the deceased was valid upto 06/04/2017 and unfortunate accident was occurred on 24/4/2017. The OPs are avoiding the payment of claim to the complainant which is clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
With this background of facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer that complaint of the complainant is allowed and OPs be directed to release the amount of claim i.e. Rs.5,54,959/- for repair of the vehicle of the complainant along with surveyor and toeing expenses and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, tension, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the hands of OPs.
3. Upon notice, OPs have appeared through counsel and filed written version. OPs have taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated and that complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint thus the same is liable to be dismissed. Complainant is a limited company and is being run for commercial purpose. On merits it is alleged that it is denied that Mr. Amit Bansal is the director of the company and is competent to file the present complaint. It is alleged that complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act as the complainant/ company is being run for commercial purpose. It is further alleged that OP has issued Goods Carrying Commercial Package Policy for truck bearing Regd. No.PB-11-CB-1044 for the period 16/9/2016 to 15/09/2017 in the name of M/s Maa Luxmi Devi Agro Pvt. Ltd. Village Nanhera, Rajpura. It is denied that insured vehicle met with an accident on 24/4/2017 and FIR No.0043 dt.24/04/2017 U/s 279/337/304-A IPC P.S. Dharampur District Solan (HP) was lodged. It is alleged that on intimation about the loss, OP has deputed IRDA approved Surveyor and loss Assessor Sh. J S Chauhan for spot survey who submitted his report dt.25/04/2017 and then Er. Anand Pal Singh Gurnay approved IRDA Surveyor and loss assessor Patiala was deputed for final survey who in his report dt.28/06/2017 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,73,591/-. It is denied that OP has directed the complainant to take the vehicle to Authorized Service Station of TATA. Toeing receipt of Vicky crane service for a sum of Rs.10,000/- is also denied. It is denied that OPs told the complainant to first clear the bill for the repair to the Authorized Service Station and thereafter OPs will reimburse the bills and that after repair when the complainant approached OP No.2 to make the payment of the service station for repair, then OP No.2 told the complainant first to clear the bill amount of the company from its own funds and replying OPs assured the complainant that after getting sanctioned the claim of the total bill amount the payment will be reimbursed to the complainant. It is also alleged that OP has not competent to given any such assurance under the rules and regulations of the Company. It is alleged that claim of the complainant was rejected vide letter No.6931 dt.24/08/2017 on the plea that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident which amounts to violations of terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that Pawan Kumar had deposited Rs.70/- as user fee and the same has been verified by Regional Transport Authority Patiala. It is denied that deceased was having valid and effective Driving Licence on the date of accident. It is denied that OPs are responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered harassment. After denying all the averments, OPs has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of Amit Bansal, Director of M/s Maa Luxmi Devi Agro Pvt. Ltd. along with documents Ex.C-1 copy of Memorandum & Articles of Association, Ex.C-2 copy of Registration Certificate, Ex.C-3 copy of National Permit, Ex.C-4 Copy of Govt. of Punjab Goods Carriage permit,Ex.C-5 copy of authorization certificate of NP, Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-8 copy of FIR, Ex.C-9 copy of surveyor report, Ex.C-10 copy of toeing receipt of Vicky Crane Service of Rs.10,000/-, Ex.C-11 copy of tax invoice, Ex.c-12 copy of receipt of full and final payment, Ex.C-13 copy of letter of repudiation, Ex.C-14 copy of Driving license of Pawan Kumar, Ex.C-15 copy of verification letter, Ex.C-16 copy of user charge receipt and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for OPs has also tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt. Kanta Devi, Ex.OPB affidavit of Er. Anandpal Singh, Ex.OPC affidavit of Sh. Joginder S Chauhan along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of repudiation letter dt.24/08/2017, Ex.OP-2 copy of intimation letter, Ex.OP-3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-4 copy of spot surveyor report, Ex.OP-5 copy of voucher, Ex.OP-6 copy of policy with conditions, Ex.OP-7 copy of RC, Ex.OP-8 copy of DL, Ex.OP-9 copy of FIR and closed the evidence of the OPs.
6. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite party has wrongly declined the claim of the complainant. Ld. Counsel has argued that vehicle was insured vide Insurance policy from 16/9/2016 to 15/09/2017 and has paid the premium of Rs.17,923/- for the policy. It is argued that on 24/04/2017 the vehicle met with an accident within the limits of Police Station Dharampur District Solan (HP) and FIR No.0043 dt.24/04/2017 U/s 279/337/304-A IPC PS Dharampur District Solan (HP) was registered. It is further argued that on instructions of the OP, the vehicle was parked to the Authorized Service Station of TATA at Rajpura. After repair the total bill comes to Rs.5,54,959/-. Ld. Counsel further argued that Pawan Kumar was driving the truck in question his licence was expired on 06/04/2017 and the accident took place on 24/7/2017. Pawan Kumar has deposited the amount of Rs.70/- within month of expiry of the licence. Ld. Counsel further argued that verification of the amount is already on file.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the citation “Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (SC) 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 912 Civil Appeal No.4749 of 2008 where in it is observed as under:-
B. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 149- Motor Vehicles Act, Section 15 (1)- Fatal motor Accident- Accident occurred when driving licence of driver had expired, but he had applied for renewed within 30 days of expiry- In such a case driver may be held to be possessing a valid driving licence.
D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 15 (1)- Expiry of driving licence- If an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid licence- But under proviso to Section 15 (1) driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon “Rohit Marwaha versus Tarsem Kaur and Ors. (P&H): 2014 (3) RCR (Civil), 456 where in it is observed as under:
“Effective driving license- The licence is deemed to be renewed from the date of submission of the application and deposit of renewal fee.”
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also relied upon “Bisambhar Prasad Verma Vs Sharmila Mandhani, ( Chhattisgarh), 2019, ACJ, 148” and “Resham Singh vs Smt. Channo Devi (P & H) 2013, ACJ, 2725.”
8. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the OPs has referred to certain citations which are as under:-
“National Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagjit Singh, I (2014) CPJ 106 (NC)”
“Amritpal and another versus Meetu Bai and others, 2019 PLR (2) 154”
“M/s Indo Arab Air Services Versus ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., 2020 (1) CLT 429”
“Shree Sharda Chains Pvt. Ltd. Versus Parsvanath Developers Ltd., 2018 (2) CLT 284”
“Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2017 ACJ 1919”
“Indian Roadlines vs. Ruldu Ram and others, 2009 ACJ 1458
9. Ld. Counsel for the OP has argued that driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident as such the claim was rejected. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the receipt vide which the amount has been deposited has not been legally proved and that the verification Regional Transport Authority is also not legally proved. Ld. Counsel further argued that OP has deputed the surveyor who assess the loss as 4,73,591/-.
10. Complainant has filed this claim and demanded the claim amount of Rs.5,54,959/- along with other charges. As per the complainant he is the owner of Tata Vehicle bearing No. PB-11-CB-1044 and the same was insured with OPs with comprehensive Insurance policy. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Dharampur Distt. Solan (HP) and FIR U/s 279/337/304 A IPC was registered and intimation was given to the OP. Ld. Counsel further pleaded that on the instructions of the OP spot survey was got conducted from J. S. Chauhan Valuer, Engineer, Surveyor and loss assessor and the vehicle was parked at Anand Motor Workshop, the authorized Service Station of TATA at Rajpura. The accident had taken place on 24/04/2017 and the licence of the driver Pawan Kumar was valid upto 06/04/2017. On this point that Pawan Kumar was not having a valid driving licence, the claim was rejected.
11. The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA and proved the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16. Ex.C-2 is the certificate of the registration, Ex.C-3 is the goods carriage permit, Ex.C-7 is the Insurance policy which is a comprehensive policy in which Chassis and Engine Numbers were mentioned. Ex.C-8 is the copy of FIR, ex.C-11 is the tax invoice of M/s Anand Motor Workshop. Ex/C-12 is the receipt issued by M/s Anand Motor Workshop, authorized service Station who received the amount of Rs.5,54,959/-. Ex.C-13 is the letter written by the OP vide which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Ex.C-16 is the material document vide which amount was deposited for renewal of the license on 03/04/2017. This receipt has been doubted by the ld. Counsel for the OP but no rebuttal evidence has been lead to prove this receipt was forged document. Ex.C-15 is also an important document which is verified by the Secretary, RTA, Patiala that Rs.70/- was deposited by Pawan Kumar for renewal of the driving license. This was also doubted by the ld. Counsel for the OP but no rebuttal evidence was lead to prove that this receipt was forged one.
12. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the OPs has tendered the affidavit of Smt. Kanta Devi, Deputy Manager of OPs, who deposed as per the written statement and she has stated that the driver was not having valid driving license. Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Er. Anand Pal Singh, Surveyor and loss assessor, who has given his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,73,591/- and the report of the surveyor is Ex.OP-3. Although the parties have cited many Judgments but it is clear from the citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Ram Babu Tiwari vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors.” (Supra) that the accident occurred when driving licence of driver had expired, but he had applied for renewal within 30 days of expiry. In such a case the driver may be held to be possessing a valid driving licence. So this case law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is fully applicable to the present case as driver has deposited the amount for renewal of the licence within 30 days of its expiry. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has also held in Rohit Marwaha Vs Tarsem Kaur and Ors, 2014 (3) RCR (Civil), 456 held that the licence is deemed to be renewed from the date of submission of the application and deposit of renewal fee.
13. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the Opposite parties tendered various citations, which are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it is proved that driver has deposited the amount for renewal of the licence within one month of its expiry and that this receipt was not rebutted by ld. Counsel for the OPs in their evidence. Further the Secretary, RTA Patiala has verified that receipt was deposited by Sh. Pawan Kumar. So it is clear that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant vide letter Ex.C-13 dt.24/08/2017 does not stands the scrutiny of law and complainant is held entitled to amount of Rs.4,73,591/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date this petition was filed i.e. from 06/10/2017. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED*
Dated: 01/10/2020
Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President
