DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 21.01.2015
Date of Decision : 10.08.2015
Manish Kumar Jain son of Shri J.K. Jain, resident of House No.332, Benjmin Road, Ludhiana.
….. Complainant
Versus
1.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Chief Regional Manager.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. D.O. VI, B-17, Phase II, Focal Point, Ludhiana, through its Senior Divisional Manager.
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor Hub, Surya Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Incharge.
…Opposite parties
(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
QUORUM:
SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate.
For OPs : Sh. M.S. Jassal, Advocate
PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed by complainant by claiming that he obtained Private Car Package Policy No.2014003113P105190983 from respondent No.2 with effective period from 24.11.2013 to 23.11.2014. Toyota Innova car bearing registration No.PB-10BD-0682 was insured by paying total premium of Rs.23,691/- to respondents. Receipt No.10220140013103475121 dated 14.11.2014 in this respect was issued. Comprehensive insurance policy was got issued in respect of the above referred car. That car met with an accident on 02.02.2014 at about 6.00 PM near Gohana on G.T. Road, Panipat. At the time of accident, Mr. Simranjit Singh son of Shri Narinder Singh was driving the car. FIR No.97 dated 02.02.2014 under Section 283/337/427 IPC was registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. Intimation regarding this accident was sent to OPs. OP2 deputed Sh. R.P. Bhasin, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to assess the loss. The surveyor after inspecting the spot and vehicle submitted report dated 11.03.2014 to OPs by assessing loss of Rs.2,76,037/-. The complainant approached OPs for calling upon them to make the payment as per assessment of the surveyor, but despite that claim submitted on 25.03.2014 remained under processing. Later on through letter dated 25.06.2014, fate of the claim was alleged to be disclosed to the complainant. In fact said letter has never been received by complainant, due to which he issued letter dated 10.11.2014 to OP1 with a copy to Vigilance Officer of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai. OP3 sent letter dated 11.11.2014 for informing the complainant as if his claim has been repudiated because he was not holding valid license to drive Toyota Innova car. That repudiation of claim passed on wrong facts because for driving private vehicle like Toyota Innova, driving license for LMV/LTV is not required. Even in the policy it is mentioned that the policy was with respect to private car. The policy was not issued for commercial purpose and as such, compensation of amount of Rs.2,76,037/- with compensation for harassment and mental agony of Rs.1,00,000/- sought.
2. In written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded, interalia, as if the complaint barred under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly, the complainant obtained Private Car Package Insurance Policy No.2014003113P105190983 for a period from 24.11.2013 to 23.11.2014 of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-DD-0682. Intimation on 20.06.2014 was received by OPs regarding accident of the car in question on 02.02.2014 at 6.00 PM at G.T. Road, Panipat. Cause of accident was dense fog. Motor claim form dated 20.02.2014 was submitted with OPs and M/s. R.P. Bhasin & Co. was appointed as surveyor, who took photographs and thereafter prepared report dated 11.03.2014 through which loss of Rs.2,76,037/- after deducting salvage value of Rs.5,000/- and excess amount of Rs.4,000/- was assessed. B.S. Narang & Associates were deputed for verification of registration certificate and driving license. The Registration Authority, Ludhiana submitted report as if the vehicle is LMV/JGP L.M.V. (Jeep/Gypsy) with Horse Power (B.H.P.) 2494. It was also submitted by investigator that passenger carrying capacity of vehicle was 8 including driver. Sh. Baldev Singh Nagar, Investigator sought information under RTI Act from DTO, Ludhiana and got intimation that a Toyota Innova having seating capacity of 7 can be driven by driver holding LMV/LTV license. Mr. Akash Sharma, Surveyor appointed to verify the genuineness and validity of driving license no.15419 dated 08.02.2011 of Simranjit Singh son of Sh. Narinder Singh. Said surveyor submitted application dated 18.04.2014 with DTO, Tarn Taran for verifying the authenticity of driving license and thereafter, Sh. Akash Sharma prepared report dated 28.04.2014. As per report of DTO, Tarn Taran Sh. Simranjit Singh was holding valid driving license to driver scooter and motor car up to 07.02.2031. As Innova Toyota vehicle is LMV and as such, Simranjit Singh was not competent to drive the same, due to which claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 11.11.2014. It is claimed that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint. Other averments of the complaint denied.
3. The complainant to prove his case, tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. R.R. Sethi, Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. and even tendered documents EX. R1 to Ex. R18 and closed evidence of OPs.
4. Written arguments submitted by both parties and even oral arguments of both parties heard and file gone through.
5. From the pleadings of the parties as well as from the produced documentary evidence, there remains no dispute that Private Car Package Policy for Innova vehicle No.PB-10DD-0682 for period from 24.11.2013 to midnight 23.11.2014 was purchased by complainant. Policy document Ex. C1 equal to Ex. R1 in this regard has been produced by both parties. There is no dispute regarding the fact that surveyor Sh. R.P. Bhasin & Co. was appointed on submission of the claim form Ex. R3 by OPs. Intimation regarding accident admittedly was sent by complainant to OPs. Even it is not disputed that surveyor vide report Ex. R4 assessed the loss of the vehicle as Rs.2,76,037/-. This amount excludes amount of salvage and the amount of Dep cap and normal excess of Rs.4,000/-. Photo copies of photographs of the damaged vehicle are produced as Ex. R5 to Ex. R10. Ex. R11 to Ex. R13 are the other documents produced by OPs themselves to establish that after due verification of the RC of Innova vehicle in question, the same was found to be genuine and valid.
6. Bone of contention remains as to whether repudiation of the claim through letter Ex. R18 dated 11.11.2014 is justified or not. After going through Ex. R18, it is made out that as per RC book the class of the vehicle in question, the same is LMV/JGP L.M.V. (Jeep/Gypsy) with H.P 2494 and passenger carrying capacity of 8 including driver. Further as per Ex. R18, after clarification from DTO, it was found that holder of driving license for motor cycle and motor car is not authorized to driver Toyota Innova having seating capacity of 7 because for driving such type of vehicle, one needs driving license for LMV/LTV, non transport for personalized vehicles and LMV/LTV transport for driving any transport/commercial vehicle. Intimation regarding verification of driving license of Simranjit Singh is produced as Ex. R13 to Ex. R15. Though driving license of Simranjit Singh was found valid on getting verification from DTO, Tarn Taran, same was found valid for driving scooter/motor car and that’s why repudiation of the claim took place through Ex. R18. Report of DTO, Ludhiana in that respect obtained as Ex. R17, is found basis for repudiation of the claim.
7. The policy in question is Private Car Package Policy as revealed by Ex. R1 and there is nothing on record to suggest that Innova Toyota was used for commercial purpose at any time. Rather affidavit Ex. CW1/A of the complainant thereto establish that the car in question was used for private purpose. As the policy in question was a Private Car Package Policy and the laden weight of this car was 1685 Kg as per RC Ex. C7 and as such, certainly this vehicle was like LMV. Even if this vehicle was LMV, to drive that vehicle on holding of driving license by the driver Simranjit Singh for driving car and the scooter, he was competent to drive Innova car. In holding this view, we are fortified by the law laid down in Kamal Kumar Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, 2007(1) CLT 610. Ratio of that case lyes that vehicle Tata Sumo, if used as private vehicle by the owner, then the same would come under definition of private service vehicle and not under the definition of transport vehicle. As unladen weight of Tata Sumo is less than 7500 kgs and as such, it would be a Light Motor Vehicle. Further in ratio of that case in case driver holds a license to drive car, then he will be considered to be eligible to drive LMV. Ratio of that case is fully applicable to the fact of the present case particularly when the laden weight of Innova vehicle is less than 7500 kgs and the same is insured as private car under the package policy and the driver was holding valid driving license to drive the car at the time of accident. As analogy of the law laid down by the above cited case, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, repudiation of the claim is illegal and unjustified. So keeping in view the ratio of this case, the complainant is entitled to assessed loss amount of Rs.2,76,037/- but with the rider that OPs made retain the salvage of the vehicle in question with them. No law to the contrary cited by counsel for OPs.
8. Even as per law laid down by case Nirmala and others Vs Satish and others 2005(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 827, in case driver of three wheeler(Tempo) causes accident at the time when he was possessing driving license enabling him to drive the scooter/motor car, then insurance company cannot avoid liability for a technical breach of the condition concerning driving license. Further as per law laid down in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Parveen Kumar 2005(1) R.C.R.(Civil)485, insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if the driver did not possess requisite type of license i.e. license for motor cycle but not for driving tempo because the method and mechanism of driving the vehicles for which the license was obtained and the one which was being driver, was the same. As mechanism of car having 4 seating capacity is same as is capacity of the Innova car and as such, by keeping in view the law laid down by above cited case, the repudiation of the claim is illegal altogether.
9. As per law laid down in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh, 2004(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 114, a person possessing a driving license for car may drive any light vehicle like jeep and maxi-cub or motor-cab or omnibus for which he has no license because non possession of such license will not be defence for the insurer to repudiate the claim. It is held by orders of Apex court of the country in its latest cited case further that where accident takes place in such a case, then insurer must prove possessing license by the driver of another type of vehicle played the main role in the cause of accident. In this case before us, insurance company has not lead any evidence to establish for non-possession of driving license enabling driver Sh. Simranjit Singh to drive LMV, played main role in accident in question, as such a repudiation of the claim is not justified in a view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh (Supra) when really such claim is not justified or is illegal, certainly there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. So this complaint liable to be accepted and same is hereby allowed.
10. Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint stands allowed in terms that OPs will pay Rs.2,76,037.34 within 90 days from the receipt of copy of orders. Salvage will be retained by United India Insurance Company. No interest allowed. However, in case payment not made within 45 days, then OPs will pay interest @7.5% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of this order till recovery. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs.
11. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Dated: 10.08.2015
(Sat Paul Garg) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
