Punjab

Moga

CC/15/86

Neena Kasyap - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vinay Kashyap

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 86 of 2015

                                                              Instituted on: 3.11.2015

                                                  Decided on: 12.04.2016

 

Neena Kashyap wife of Sh.Vinay Kashyap son of Sh. Dev Pal Kashyap, resident of Basant Singh Road, Civil Lines, Moga, District Moga.

 

                                                                             ……….   Complainant 

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 6-7, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market, Moga, District Moga, through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                           ………. Opposite Party

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:     Sh. Vinay Kashyap, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Advocate Cl. for opposite party.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal, President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 6-7, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market, District Moga, through its Divisional Manager (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) for directing them to pay Rs.17,342/- on account of loss of the vehicle bearing registration no.PB-03AD-0198 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim by complainant till its realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant.

2.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the vehicle of the complainant bearing no.PB-03D-1098 i.e. ERTIGA car is being insured continuously with the opposite party from the last so many years without any break and lastly, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with opposite party vide policy no.2012003114P106531745, which was valid for the period from 19.11.2014 to 18.11.2015. During the abovesaid policy period, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 28.6.2015 and intimation was given to the opposite party in this regard. Thereafter, as per the directions of the opposite party, the vehicle was parked with Maruti Authorized Service Centre i.e. Pankaj Motors, Moga on 4.7.2015 and job card was prepared and vehicle was repaired by the service centre. Thereafter, the complainant submitted the repair bill of the vehicle in question with the opposite party amounting to Rs.17,342/- and also completed all the formalities. But, however, after completing all the formalities, the opposite party has declined the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 7.9.2015 on false and frivolous ground that "the insured vehicle was being driven by Sh. Vibhu Kashyap who held a driving licence for scooter/car only". But theses contentions of the opposite party are totally wrong and illegal. The complainant made several requests and sent reminders many a times to the opposite party to admit her rightful claim, but of no avail. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint; that the complainant has got no locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, as the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. Further submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the following grounds:-

i)       That the insured vehicle (insured with a seating capacity of 7 including driver) and is registered as "LMVCAR".

ii)      That at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by Sh. Vibhu Kashyap who held a driving licence for "Scooter Car" only.

          Sh. Vibhu Kashyap was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle which is an Omnibus and registered as LMVCAR. Thus, due to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, claim of the complainant was repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. However, it has been submitted that Sh. Vibhu Kashyap was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the insured vehicle. Thus, due to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant is not entitled to any claim or compensation from the opposite party.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant Neena Kashyap tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-11and closed the evidence. 

5.                 In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1 and copies of documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-13 and closed the evidence.

6.                 Learned counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is the owner of ERTIGA Car, bearing registration no.PB-03D-1098, which was insured with opposite party and the insurance policy was valid from 19.11.2014 to 18.11.2015. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.6.2015 and she gave due intimation regarding it to opposite party. Thereafter, as per the directions of the opposite party, the vehicle was took to Pankaj Motors, Moga for repairs, who repaired the vehicle and charged Rs.17,342/- as repair charges, which were duly paid by complainant, copy of the bill is Ex.C-3. The complainant duly submitted the bill and other required documents and fulfilled all the formalities for her claim with opposite party. But the opposite party rejected the claim of complainant vide their letter dated 7.9.2015 on false and frivolous grounds that the insured vehicle is registered as LMV Car and at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by Sh. Vibhu Kashyap who held a driving licence for scooter/ car only and he was not holding valid licence to drive the vehicle in question. These contentions of the opposite party are totally wrong and illegal, copy of the repudiation letter dated 7.9.2015 is Ex.C-2. The opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant on false grounds. Complainant served a legal notice dated 14.09.2015 upon the opposite party demanding her claim copy of the notice is Ex.C-4. The vehicle in question is a motor car and not LMV and Mr. Vaibhu Kashyap who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was holding a valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle, copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle is Ex.C-10 and Driving Licence of Mr. Vibhu Kashyap is Ex.C-11. The complainant made many requests to the opposite party to admit her claim, but they took no action. Due to this act of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered huge mental tension, agony and monetary loss. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the loss of his vehicle alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

7.                To controvert the arguments, learned counsel for opposite party argued that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. However, they admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them and the same met with an accident as alleged by complainant. On intimation from the complainant, they processed and decided the claim of the complainant without any delay. They rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. They duly issued letter dated 7.9.2015 to complainant repudiating his claim on the ground that vehicle in question was insured with a seating capacity of 7 persons and registered as 'LMV CAR' and at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by Sh. Vibhu Kashyap who held a driving licence for Scooter/Car only. He was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle which is an 'Omnibus' and registered as 'LMV CAR', which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. So, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. As per Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 "Omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons. However the insured vehicle has a seating capacity to carry seven persons. So, the vehicle is not a Motor Car, however it is Omnibus and Sh. Vibhu Kashyap has not valid licence to drive the omnibus. So, the complainant is not entitled to any claim or compensation for the loss of his vehicle. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against the opposite party. From the copy of Registration Certificate, it is clear that the vehicle in question is registered as 'LMV CAR' and not as a Motor Car, so the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

8.                We have carefully gone through the file and evidence led by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of ERTIGA car, which was insured with opposite party. The said car met with an accident and she duly gave intimation regarding it to opposite party, but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle and they wrongly and illegally repudiated her claim. In reply, opposite party argued that vehicle in question is registered as LMVCAR and having seating capacity of morethan six persons and comes under the definition of "Omnibus", whereas the driver of the vehicle was holding driving licence only to drive scooter and car only. He was not having a driving licence to drive the LMV vehicle or Omnibus. It is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,  so they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

9.                We have gone thorough the file and have carefully scrutinized the documents placed on record.

10.              The perusal of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle copy whereof is Ex.C-10 shows that vehicle is registered as LMV CAR, whereas the Registration Details of the vehicle shows the type of the vehicle as Motor Car having seating capacity 6 + 1 i.e. six persons plus one driver. As per Motor Vehicle Act definition of "Motor Car" means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage and the definition of "Omnibus" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding driver, whereas the vehicle in question having seating capacity of six persons excluding driver and not more than six persons excluding the driver. So, the vehicle in question has not come under the definition of 'Omnibus' as argued by the opposite party and it cannot be considered as 'Omnibus". The vehicle in question is not a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage and it clearly comes under the definition of Motor Car. The vehicle in question is registered with registering authority as Motor Car only by printing on Registration card as LMVCAR. The vehicle cannot be considered as Omnibus and as LMV.

11.              We are of the considered opinion that the vehicle in question is a Motor Car and Mr. Vibhu Kashyap who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident had a valid driving licence to drive the scooter and car only. So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that opposite party wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and frivolous ground that at the time of accident driver had not having valid and effective driving licence. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair mall practice. The complainant is entitled for the claim of her vehicle. Hence, the complaint in hand is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay the insurance claim for the loss of the vehicle of the complainant to the tune of Rs.14,943/- as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the opposite party vide his survey report Ex.OP-3 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 7.9.2015 when the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant till its final realization. Further opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as compensation on account of mental tension and deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum, for getting the order complied with. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                              (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal )

                               Member                                       President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 12.04.2016.

 

 

hs