BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 39 of 2015
Date of Institution : 24.02.2015
Date of Decision : 4.10.2016
Rekha Rani wife of Shri Rang Lal, resident of Ward No.6, Flat No.35, MS, 3rd Floor, True Soul Complex, Shah Satnam Ji Dham, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, City Thana Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager.
..…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL…………MEMBER.
Present: Sh.H.R.Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that being registered owner of Car bearing registration no.HR-24R-9449, she got insured the same from the opposite party vide insurance cover note No.162149 for the period from 7.6.2013 to 6.6.2014. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 18.1.2014. Complainant informed the Op-company. Surveyor appointed by the op inspected and surveyed the car and as per his instructions, the complainant brought the car to Krishna Autozone Rohtak Road, Gohana for its repairs. The car was repaired and damaged parts were replaced. A sum of Rs.72,000/- was incurred by the complainant on repair of the car. After repair also, the vehicle was got inspected by the op from surveyor. Thereafter, the complainant lodged her claim with the op and supplied all the required documents but op vide letter dated 4.7.2014 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that insured vehicle was driven by Mr. Balraj without having valid and effective driving licence having specific authorization, endorsement to drive the LMV car on the date of accident and at the time of accident, the said car was being driven by Balraj who is authorized to drive HMV vehicle whereas the driving licence is never issued directly and a driver holding HMV driving licence is also authorized to drive LMV also. The op has illegally and unlawfully repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op appeared and contested the case by filing written version. It is replied that at the time of alleged accident, the insured vehicle was not being driven by duly licensed person. The insured supplied the copy of driving licence of Balraj, which shows that he was only authorized to drive HMV vehicles, whereas he was driving the Car which requires specific licence to drive Car/ LMV and as such insured car was being driven by a person who was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant produced affidavit Ex.C1, copy of registration certificate Ex.C2, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C3, copy of repudiation letter dated 4.7.2014 Ex.C4, copy of driving licence of Balraj Ex.C5, copies of bills of repair Ex.C6 and Ex.C7. Whereas Op has produced affidavit of Sh. K.R. Jain, Divisional Manager Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R6. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. There is no dispute that the complainant is the registered owner of the Car bearing registration No. HR-24R/9449 which was insured with the opposite party from 7.6.2013 to 6.6.2014. There is also no dispute that car in question met with an accident on 18.1.2014 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy in question. The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident driver who was holding a driving licence for heavy motor vehicles was driving Car i.e. light motor vehicle without any specific endorsement to driving the light motor vehicle which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. However, in a similar matter, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as Harsewak Singh Vs. Smt. Lajo Devi and others, Vol. CLXX (2013-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 809 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant has held that “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 147- Driver had driving licence to drive two-wheeler and a heavy transport vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident at the relevant time was only a light motor vehicle. The Insurance company is liable.” The above said authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. So, while relying upon the abovesaid observations, we are of the considered view that opposite party has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. The authorities cited by learned counsel for opposite party in cases titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & Ors., CA No.1102 of 2009 decided on 18.2.2009 and OIC Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors. CA No.3055 of 2008 decided on 29.4.2008 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, repudiation of claim of the complainant is liable to be set-aside and we order accordingly.
6. Now, coming to the loss suffered by complainant due to damage of vehicle, the Surveyor in his detailed report Ex.R4 has assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.32,000/-. The report of surveyor is an important document prepared under the legal provisions and should not be brushed aside without any sufficient reasons. So, we are of the considered view that it will be justified if the amount assessed by the surveyor is to be paid to the complainant.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.32,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 24.2.2015 till actual payment. We also direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the op. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:4.10.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
