DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 857/2015
Date of Institution -07/11/2015
Date of Order -22/08/2016
In matter of
Mr Pawan Kumar, adult,
s/o- Sh Vidhi Narayan
R/o- H-346, Bisan pura,
Sec. 58, Noida, Ghaziabad, UP……………………………………….Complainant
Vs
1-United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its General Manager
Regd. Office -24, Whites House,
Chennai-600014
2-The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
D- 8, CSA Marg, Vikas Marg,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092 ……………………….…………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate-V A Farooqui & S A Hassan
Opponent’ s Advocate-Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Quorum - Shri- Sukhdev Singh-President,
Dr P N Tiwari-Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur-Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant had taken a package insurance policy for his Jeep Taxi, vide regn. no. UP-16BT-1216, a commercial vehicle, vide policy no. 2215003113P103063660 on dated 02/07/2013.
He paid its premium a sum of Rs 28,544/-for sum assured IDV Rs 7,18,000/-. The policy tenure was from 02/07/2013 to 01/07/2014.
As per complainant, the said vehicle got burnt due to short circuit on the way to Vrindavan from Noida. The said vehicle /Jeep was driven by Rahul Singh, s/o Ram Asray Singh, r/o 18, Yograj colony, Dhirpur village, Delhi-09. He had valid driving licensed and was assisted by co driver Satish Shukla.
Complainant submitted that vehicle was completely damaged due to fire. He had lodged police complaint at police station, Mathura, UP. He had stated that the information was given to OP on the same day. As the vehicle got fire, so fire officer inspected and submitted their report on 30/06/2014.
The complainant approached OP for claim as his vehicle was insured and had vehicle IDV was a sum assured to Rs 7,18,000/-. As per complaint, OP tried their best to settle the matter for 3-4 lacs but complainant wanted its full IDV. As his claim was not entertained, so filed this complaint claiming insured value to sum of Rs 7,18,000/- with 18% interest with compensation of Rs 2 lac and litigation cost Rs 11,000/.
After perusal of complaint and annexure, notice was served. OP submitted its written statement. OP denied all the allegations of complainant and specifically stated that the rejection under violation of terms and condition of policy, which was justified based on the report submitted by the fire officer’s and surveyors’ report. OP submitted that the said vehicle was driven by Satish Shukla at the time of accident occurred who did not had valid driving licence.
The fire officer’s report said that vehicle was driven by Satish Shukla and spot survey report given by surveyor also support that the said vehicle was driven by Satish Shukla. After verifying the driving license of Satish Shukla from issuing RTO office at Mainpuri reported that licence was issued from their office. The claim was rejected for the violation of policy terms and condition.
So rejection was justified. OP submitted their evidences on affidavit which were on record as -
1-Annexure Ex DW1/A as information given to police officer of PS Jamuna par, Mathura on dated 23/06/2014 and also endorsed the name of owner.
2-The evidence of Fire Officer’s report as Annexure Ex DW4/B which pertains to UP fire service of UP. In its report under serial no. 5(d) reads as - Medium of information-Driver Satish Shukla having his mob. No. 981807712. This was reaffirmed from s.n. 16 on page 3 which again reads as driver was Satish Shukla. This fire report was attested by Chief Fire Officer, Mathura.
3-The OP further submitted surveyor’s report annexed as ExDW1/D which clearly states the detail of driver who was driving the vehicle. As per surveyor report, the driving licence did not match with the record of RTO at Mainpuri, UP. The MLO had certified that the said driving licence was not issued from their office.
Based on the authentic reports from Fire Officer and RTO, it was clear that vehicle was not driven by the person holding valid driving licence, hence, their claim was rejected under the violation of policy terms and conditions, and was justified.
Complainant submitted his rejoinder with evidences on affidavit and was on record. OP1 also submitted their relevant evidences on affidavit denying all the facts brought by complainant.
Arguments were heard from both the parties and order was reserved.
By seeing all the facts and evidences submitted by both the parties on affidavit, it was clear that the said vehicle was insured and was a commercial vehicle. Complainant had paid its premium also. These facts were also accepted by OP.
After seeing the evidences on record, we come to the conclusion that policy terms and conditions of the policy had been violated. Whether rejection of claim by OP was justified, we took the reference of under mentioned citations applicable in this case as under-
- Tirupati Transport Corporation vs OIC, RP 2093/2015-I(2016)CPJ12(NC)- decided on 25/08/2015. Held that “OP is not liable to reimburse for damage caused to vehicle, if it is found that driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence repudiation is justified.
- Seema Garg vs OIC-II(2014)CPJ5(NC) decided on 15/-01/2014. Held Driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. OP is not liable to pay the compensation for loss.
- NIC vs Sanjeev Kumar, IV(2013)CPJ1(NC)- decide on 23/08/2013. Held Damage to vehicle due to invalid driving licence possessed by driver. RTO also said that the licence was invalid. Complainant is not entitled for loss even on sub standard basis. Repudiation was justified.
Hence, it is clear that any damage occurred to the insured vehicle due to driver who had invalid driving licence at the time accident, rejection of claim by OP is justified which clearly proves the violation of terms and condition of the policy.
So, we come to the conclusion that the rejection of claim done by OP is well within the policy terms and conditions and so justified. Therefore, this complaint deserve to be dismissed. Hence, complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur -Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
