Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1425/2015

Mithu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sumir Fatta

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  1425

                                                Instituted on:    04.11.2015

                                                Decided on:       30.08.2016

 

Mithu Ram son of Surat Ram, resident of H.No.626, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam,District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP                    :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President:

 

1.             Shri Mithu Ram, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is the owner of one Vento Car bearing registration number PB-42-B-0660 which was got insured from the OP under policy number 1117843114P147296192 for the period from 01.5.2014 to 30.04.2015 by paying the requisite premium to the OP.

2.             It is further averred that on 21.03.2015, the above said vehicle met with an accident when the complainant was going from Patran to Dirba with his driver, namely, Mohan Singh as all of sudden due to flash lights of some other vehicle, as the driver lost his control over the car and the car dashed into a tree, as such the card was badly damaged.  It is further averred that thereafter the intimation was immediately given to the OP about the accident, who appointed surveyor Mr. Gautam and as per the directions of the surveyor, the complainant took his car to Bhagat Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Jhill Adda, Near Rajpura Bypass, Patiala for repairs. It is further averred that after getting repaired the car in question, the complainant paid all the repair charges to the tune of Rs.52,549/- as advised by the surveyor and thereafter submitted all the bills and documents to the surveyor of the OP, but the claim was not paid despite that.  It is further averred that the complainant received a letter from the OP on 5.9.2015, whereby the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that driving license of Mohan Singh son of Pritam Singh is authorised to drive LMG-GV/MCWG/Tractor, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident is a private car, so the driving license is not valid for private car. The complainant has alleged that the OP has wrongly and with malafide intention repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.52,549/- along with interest @ 18% per annum  and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OP, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant is insured with the OP for the period from 1.5.2014 to 30.04.2015 for the private purposes subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for Rs.6,50,000/- only. The policy terms and conditions were duly supplied to the complainant.  It is stated that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident of the car, the OP immediately appointed Er. Gautam Modi, surveyor and loss assessor for submitting the survey report, who submitted the report dated 10.04.2015 whereby he assessed the net loss payable to the tune of Rs.47,824/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further averred that the complainant submitted the driving license of his driver Mohan Singh, which was valid for LMV-GV, MCWG, tractor only and the driver was not authorised to drive the car, as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 3.9.2015.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 copies of the bills, Ex.C-3 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-4 copy of DL and Ex.C-5 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-2 private car package policy, Ex.OP-3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-4 affidavit of Er. Gautam Modi, Ex.OP-5 affidavit of Satish Kumar and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the car in question bearing registration number PB-42-B-0660 was insured with the Op for the period from 1.5.2014 to 30.4.2015 under the policy in question. It is further not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident on 21.3.2015 during the subsistence of the insurance policy and damaged due to the accident.

 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the repudiation of the claim of the car on the ground that the driving license of the Mohan Singh was not valid to drive the Vento car. So, in the present complaint there is only dispute with regard to the validity and effectiveness of the driving license of the driver, Mohan Singh who was driving the car in question at the time of accident on 21.03.2015.

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that Shri Mohan Singh was having a valid driving license, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4. A bare perusal of it shows that the driver Mohan Singh was having a valid driving license to drive the transport vehicles upto 10.03.2016 and for non transport vehicles the license in question was valid uptil 10.03.2030.  We feel that the Vento car is not a transport vehicle, rather the same is a non transport vehicle, meaning thereby Shri Mohan Singh could drive the car in question with the driving license in question.  The learned counsel for the Op has also produced on record the copy of details of the driving license issued by the Licensing Authority, which is on record as Ex.OP/6 and a bare perusal of it shows that the driver Mohan Singh was having a license to drive motor cycle with gear, light motor vehicle tractor, light motor vehicle transport goods, transport vehicle M/HMV (Regis Chassis) goods, meaning thereby the driver Mohan Singh was authorised to drive the Vento car, which is a non transport vehicle.  The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in First Appeal No.472 of 2015 titled as Aslam Khan versus National Insurance Company Limited and others. Under the circumstances, we feel that the OP cannot repudiate the rightful claim of the complainant on this count that the driver Mohan Singh is not  having a valid driving license to drive the car.  It is further case of the complainant that he requested the OP to settle the claim in the light of document Ex.C-4, which is a valid driving license, but the OP has not settled the claim though the complainant has spent a huge amount of Rs.52,549/- on the repair of the car in question. To support such a contention, the complainant has also produced on record the copies of the bills of the repairer, which are on record as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2. As such, we are of the considered opinion that Shri Mohan Singh was having a valid driving license to drive the car.

 

9.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.52,549/-. The learned counsel for the OP has produced on record the copy of survey report Ex.OP-3 of Shri Gautam Modi, surveyor and loss assessor, whereby he has assessed the loss of the car to the tune of Rs.47,824/-.  Further to support the contention that the assessment has been made after inspection of the accidental vehicle is also supported by the affidavit of Shri Gautam Modi, surveyor, which is on record as Ex.OP-4.  In the circumstances of the case, we find it proper and feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is held liable to pay the insurance claim as per the final  report dated 10.04.2015, which is on record as Ex.OP/3, whereby the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.47,824/-.

 

10.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.47,824/- on account of insurance claim as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.11.2015 till realisation. The OP is  further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 30, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member