Harbans Singh, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against United India Insurance Company Limited ( here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party').
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Car Tata Indica Vista bearing registration No. PB-65-T-4897. Lakhbir Singh is the Power of Attorney Holder of Harbans Singh. The car was comprehensively insured with opposite party vide certificate No. 2004003115P109940479 w.e.f. 29-11-2015 to 28-11-2016 for the IDV of Rs.1,80,000/-. On 06-11-2016 the said car met with an accident in the revenue limits of P.S. Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur. In this regard DDR No. 23/19.11.2016 was lodged with P.S. Bhawanigarh. At that time the vehicle was being driven by Lakhbir Singh. Intimation of accident was given to the office of opposite party. They appointed surveyor Er. Atul Gupta. He surveyed the vehicle and took necessary photographs and documents. Thereafter the vehicle was shifted with repairer at Gidderbaha (M/s Punjab Motors) workshop. They issued estimate for Rs.6,72,112.80. against IDV of Rs.1,80,000/-. The surveyor of the opposite party also declared vehicle as total loss in his survey report as the damage was more than IDV. The opposite party appointed another surveyor without any authority and approval of the higher authority, which is mandatory under section 64U of Insurance Act. The opposite party took another assessment without inspection of the vehicle and at the back of the complainant.
It is alleged that at the time of survey, the surveyor of the opposite party obtained signatures of the complainant on blank Claim Form, blank Consent Form and Blank Full and Final Voucher and assured payment of total loss claim.
It is further alleged that surveyor of the opposite party are under the thumb of Insurance Company. They cannot afford to disoblige their master i.e. opposite party from where they have to obtain business. The surveyor and opposite party never sent any survey report to the complainant.
It is alleged that opposite party vide letter dated 18-03-2017 repudiated the claim on false, flimsy and unlawful grounds that Lakhbir Singh was not holding license for car. The repudiation is totally illegal.
It is also pleaded that due to non-payment of claim, complainant has suffered mental agony and pains.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on account of total loss with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of loss; Rs.50,000/- as compensation for sufferings and Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
It is relevant to mention that in support of his contentions, complainant has also quoted some case law, reference of which is not considered necessary at this stage.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint. The complaint is not filed by competent and authorized person. The claim has been repudiated after scrutinising and getting report from competent surveyor. The complainant not supplied documents. The driver of car was not holding legal, valid, effective and valid driving license to drive said car, at the time of alleged accident. The driving licence produced was valid for driving M/Cycle and Tractor only. The claim was rightly held to be not payable. This decision cannot be questioned before this Forum, as there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party in deciding the claim case. That the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of policy. He did not co-operate and supply the required documents. That the complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Forum. He has concocted false story that surveyor has obtained signatures on blank claim form, different blank papers, blank vouchers etc.
It is also pleaded that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious but in alternate it is submitted that IDV was lower than actual. If this Forum comes to conclusion that any amount is payable, then only proportionate amount would be payable by Company.
On merits also, issuance of policy is not disputed. Repudiation of claim is also not disputed but the opposite party has reiterated its version as taken in preliminary objections. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 25-10-2017 of Lakhbir Singh (Ex. C-1), photocopy of policy (Ex. C-2), photocopy of licence (Ex. C-3), photocopy of registration certificate (Ex. C-4), photocopy of DDR (Ex. C-5), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of special power of attorney (Ex. C-7) and closed the evidence.
In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite party has tendered into evidence photocopy of affidavit dated 2-12-2016 of Harbans Singh (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of survey report (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of verification of driving licence (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of general diary details (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of certificate U/S 64 VB (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of policy (Ex. OP-1/7), affidavit dated 18-4-2018 of Baldev Singh (Ex. OP-1/8) and closed the evidence.
Both the parties have submitted written arguments also.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of the parties.
The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that material facts are admitted. IDV of the vehicle is Rs. 1,80,000/-. The opposite party appointed surveyor. The report of surveyor is (Ex. OP-1/3). The surveyor has assessed estimated loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 3,22,588/-. It is certainly more than IDV of the vehicle. Therefore, it is a case of total loss. The opposite party has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 18-3-2017 (Ex. C-6). As per this letter, it was intimated that driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The opposite party has also produced copy of verification report of driving licence of driver Lakhbir Singh (Ex,. OP-1/4). It is admitted and proved that Lakhbir Singh was having valid licence for M/cycle and Tractor. The vehicle involved was Tata Indica Vista which is LMV Car. Therefore, it falls within definition of Light Motor Vehicle. The driver holding driving licence of Tractor is competent to drive car/Jeep also. Therefore, repudiation claim is illegal.
To support this contention, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon :
(IV) 2017 CPJ 13 (SC) case titled Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
(ii) 2010 (1) RCR Civil 934 case titled New India Assuance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mahendra Singh
(iii) 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 848 case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors.
(iv) 1999 (III) CPJ 5 (SC) case titled Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Orietal Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(v) 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 508 case titled Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Mukesh
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that complainant himself has produced copy of insurance policy (Ex. C-4) wherein it is categorically mentioned that person driving the vehicle should hold effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining licence. Both the parties are bound by terms and conditions of the policy. The copy of certificate of registration is Ex. C-4. It proves that class of vehicle is LMV (Light Motor Vehicle). Admittedly Lakhbir Singh Driver was holding licence for M/cycle and Tractor only (Ex. OP-1/3). Under the Motor Vehicle Act, car and tractors are defined separately. Therefore, it is to be accepted that car and tractors are separate vehicles having separate mechanism. Person holding driving licence for tractor cannot be held competent to drive car also as he was not holding licence for car. There was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party is justified to repudiate the claim.
To support this contention, learned counsel for the opposite party cited :-
(i) 1998 (1) RCR (Civil) 302 case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shinder Kaur
(ii) 2014 (46) RCR civil 522 case titled M/s. Punjab Tractors Ltd., Vs. Harinder Singh and Others
(iii) 2017 (4) PLR 369 case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that if this Forum comes to the conclusion that driver was competent to drive the vehicle involved in this accident, complainant is not entitled to IDV of the vehicle. He is entitled to sum of Rs. 1,29,000/- as per assessment mentioned in the survey report which is with R.C.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
The admitted facts are that the complainant got his vehicle i.e. car insured with the opposite party for the period from 29-11-2015 to 28-11-2016. The car met with an accident on 6-11-2016 within covered period. On lodging claim by complainant, the opposite party appointed surveyor but ultimately the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 18-3-2017 (Ex. C-6). A perusal of aforesaid letter reveals that ground of repudiation is that driver, at the time of accident, was not having valid driving licence to drive said car.
Admittedly the driver was holding driving licence of M/cycle and Tractor and the vehicle involved is LMV car. Therefore, the point for determination is whether a person holding licence of Tractor was competent to drive LMV car.
In the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the conclusion of Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded in para No. 46 (ii) is relevant. For the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced below :-
“A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 Kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 Kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of 'light motor vehicle' as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 Kg or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 Kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10 (2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.”
Therefore, aforesaid observation proves that motor car, tractor, road roller are in the category of light motor vehicle. Therefore any person holding driving licence for tractor is also competent to drive the car.
Hon'ble High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mahender Singh and Others (supra) has also observed that :-
“If driving method and mechanism of vehicle which a person drives is same as that of vehicle for which he was holding a valid driving licence – validity of such licence for driving former vehicle will not be challenged.”
There is nothing to show that driving method and mechanism of tractor and LMV car is different. Therefore, the conclusion is that a person holding driving licence for tractor is also competent to drive LMV car. Resultantly, repudiation on this ground is not sustainable and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Now coming to the amount of claim for which complainant is entitled to. Admittedly, IDV of car is Rs. 1,80,000/-. The opposite party appointed surveyor. Report of surveyor is Ex. OP-1/3. The surveyor has assessed the loss on repair basis to the tune of Rs. 3,22,588/- which is certainly more than IDV of the vehicle. As such, it is a case of total loss. Complainant is entitled to reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- which is IDV of the vehicle.
In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party is directed to pay to complainant claim amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- with compensation by way of interest @9% p.a. with effect from 18-03-2017 (date of repudiation) till realization. Complainant will hand over the damaged vehicle and execute letter of subrogation/documents and complete the other formalities, if any, required by law for release of claim
The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced :
25-07-2019
(M.P.Singh Pahwa )
President
(Manisha)
Member
