Core IV, Ist, Floor, Scope Minor Complex, Laxmi Nagar, Distt. Centre, Delhi – 110 092.
Tel:011-22421022.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Shri Vijay Singh, counsel for the complainant/
Sh. D.K.Gosain, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of the Car (Hyundai Xcent) having registration No. HR-38-W-6383 . The complainant purchased an insurance policy No.2210003118P103625562 amounting to Rs.26142/- from the opposite party on 16.06.2018 for the car as mentioned above and period of insurance was from 16.06.2018 to midnight of 15.06.2019. The above said car of the complainant met with an accident near Bareja Hospital, Fatehpur Billoch while the complainant coming back from Ballabgarh to his house at VPO Fatehpur Billoch. A truck was high lights was coming from opposite side i.e from Fatehpur Billoch to Ballabgarh and suddenly a bull came in the mid road and the complainant tried to save himself from the accident with the bull led to an accident even after the due care and intelligence of the complainant. The complainant’s car got hit with the roadside tree. A lot of damages were there in the car of the complainant by this accident. The very next day the information regarding the accident was given to the opposite party and a surveyor was appointed by the opposite party who surveyed the damages to the car due to the accident and promised that the claim for the damages to the car would be given by the opposite party. The complainant brought the car to the workshop
p A-1 Motors, Plot No.. 10/B, Delhi-Mathura Road, Sector-5, Faridabad for the repairing as per the advice given by the opposite party and insurance documents were given to the A-1 Motors to claim the expenses from the opposite party. The total expense vide bill dated 01.04.2019 amounting to Rs.48973/- was incurred in the repairing of the said car of the complainant. The complainant submitted all requisite documents i.e. Bill, policy document, ID and address proof etc. with the opposite party but inspite of receiving the above said documents, the opposite party did not pay the repairing bill dated 01.04.2019 amounting to Rs.48973/- to the AI Motors and no satisfactory response was given by the opposite party regarding the non-payment of expenses of repairing mentioned above to the AI Motors. All the documents were provided to the opposite party within stipulated time by the complainant but the opposite party did not pay any heed towards the rigorous requests of the complainant. After waiting and making several requests to the opposite party continuously for 25 days approximately, the opposite party refused to pay the expenses incurred in the case of the complainant, due to which the complainant paid Rs.48973/- as the repairing expenses of the car to A-1 motors as A-1 Motors who denied to keep the repaired car in their garage any more as they had performed all duties on their part. Upon the enquires and requests by the complainant to the opposite party for payment of the repairing expenses of the car, the opposite party issued a letter dated 06.05.2019 to the complainant regarding the repudiation of the claim for the vehicle No. HR-38W-6383 with the reason mentioned as “ Pradeep Saini is not authorized to drive the above said vehicle.”The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) pay the genuine claim of Rs.48973/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of actual payment.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 55,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that there had been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party because on receipt of own damage claim of vehicle No. HR38-W-6383, the same was got processed, investigated by appointing IRDA Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor – Innovative insurance surveyor and Loss Assessors Private Limited, who made spot inspection and thereafter Shri Kan Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who also appointed, who submitted final survey report after assessing the loss of Rs.44,790.16ps. However the same was not found payable in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the complainant was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive vehicle No. HR-38W-6383 which was taxi being passenger carrying vehicle and the driving licesne of the complainant was only authorizing him to driver M/cycle with gear and LMV-NT only whereas the vehicle in question registered with registration authority as mexi cab (LPV) hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the company vide letter dated 06.5.2019. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – United India Insurance with the prayer to : a) pay the genuine claim of Rs.48973/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of actual payment. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 55,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.PW1/A – affidavit of Shri Pradeep Saini,, Ex.P1 – RC,, Ex.P2 – Insurance policy, Ex._3 – Invoice summary, Ex.P3 – receipt dated 30.04.2019, Ex.P4 – letter dated 06.05.2019,, Ex.P5 – driving licence.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Dinesh Kumar , Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Sector-16, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 – insurance policy, Ex.R2 – Spot Inspection Report, Ex.R3 – repudiation letter 0605.2019.
6. It is evident from P1 that the complainant is the owner of the car (Hyundai Xent) having registration NO. HR-38-W-6383. As per Ex.P2 that the complainant purchased an insurance policy No.2210003118P103625562 amounting to Rs.26142/- from the opposite party on 16.06.2018 for the car as mentioned above and period of insurance was from 16.06.2018 to midnight of 15.06.2019. It is evident from P3 that the complainant brought the car to the workship A-1 Motors, Plot No.. 10/B, Delhi-Mathura Road, Sector-5, Faridabad for the repairing as per the advice given by the opposite party and insurance documents were given to the A-1 Motors to claim the expenses from the opposite party. The total expense vide bill dated 01.04.2019 amounting to Rs.48973/- was incurred in the repairing of the said car of the complainant. It is evident from repudiation letter dated 06.05.2019 Vide Ex..P4 on the ground that “Driver Mr. Pradeep Saini, S/o Shri Jagan Saini of insured vehicle bearing driving licence No. HR-2920130055305 is not authorized to drive the above said vehicle.”
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has placed on record citation in case titled United India Insurance Company ltd. Versus Smt. Bimla Devi & Ors. In FAO 4065 of 2015 (O &M) decided on 20.05.2019 in which it has been held that “Motor vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Accident – License – Light Transport vehicle – Merely because judgment in Mukund Dewangan case is referred to larger bench for reconsideration does not nullify its effect hold that person holding license for light motor vehicle is entitled to drive light transport vehicle as well – claim petition allowed.
7. After going through the evidence led by parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to process the claim of the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the copy of order and pay the due amount to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 03.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
