BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.360 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 19.10.2020

      Date of Decision: 19.06.2023

Sukhbir Kaur W/o Harnam Singh r/o VPO Bolina Doaba, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Nakodar, Opposite Bus Stand Nakodar, District Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. A. S. Luthra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is the owner of Vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-08-DG-7686. The complainant got his vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-08-DG- 7686 insured from the OP vide policy bearing No.2005033118P100322846 for the period 04.04.2018 to 03.04.2019. Vide the said policy of insurance, the OP has undertaken to reimburse and indemnify the complainant for the loss/damage caused to the vehicle during the operational period of policy of insurance. On 18.05.2018, the driver of the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh S/o Tirath Ram while driving the above said vehicle in the area of Mallowal met with an accident due to suddenly coming of stray animal in front of the vehicle. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party regarding the loss caused to the vehicle in the aforesaid accident and completed all the formalities. The OP appointed M/s Jasjeet Singh Hora & Co. as Surveyor to assess the loss who visited & inspected the vehicle at M/s Aujla Motors Ltd., Jalandhar where the vehicle was taken on asking of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor. All the vehicle related documents and Driving Licence of Gurpreet Singh, Claim Form, Original Tax Invoice/Bill dated 10-09- 2018 of M/s Aujla Motors Ltd., Jalandhar for Rs.76,656/- qua the repair of vehicle were provided to said Surveyor. Copy of Bill of Repair is Rs.76656/- The copy of Survey Report obtained by the complainant under RTI Act from the opposite party revealed that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor Jasjeet Singh Hora & Co. has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.42,150/- without giving any reason as against the expenses incurred by the complainant vide bill for Rs.76,656/-. The OP kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and did not pay the genuine and bona fide claim of the complainant and ultimately the opposite party has sent a letter dated 13.02.2019 to the complainant stating therein that opposite party is closing the file on account of reason that the driving Licence is not valid for the given type of the vehicle. The repudiation of claim of the complainant by the OP is baseless and on frivolous ground, while in fact, the driver of the vehicle namely Gurpreet Singh was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident for LMV issued by SDM-cum- Licensing Authority, Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar. The OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant with malafide intention and against the settled law of the land. The OP is indulging in unfair trade practices and the services provided by the OP are deficient and defective in nature and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.76,656/- being the expenses incurred for repair of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 18.05.2018 till the date of payment. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present false complaint against the answering respondent. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint just to defame the answering OP and to claim the compensation, damages and costs illegally. It is further averred that the complainant informed the OP after the expiry of 7 days from the alleged accident i. e. on 25-05-2018 on phone, and has not complied with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It is further averred that no FIR or the DDR in respect of the alleged accident was not got registered with the Police in respect of the alleged accident. Even then opposite parties have co-operated with the complainant, but the complainant or her husband has not co-operated with the OP despite giving of Phone call and of the writing of the Three Registered Letters. The same shall be supplied later on. It is further averred that the Driver of the Vehicle Gurpreet Singh, was not holding a valid Driving License at the time of the accident. The complainant is barred by her act and conduct from filling this false and frivolous complaint. The Surveyor has assessed the Loss to the tune of Rs.42,150.67 as permissible under the rules, after deducting the amounts which are legally liable to be deducted on the Metal Parts due to depreciation, on the Rubber parts to the tune of 50%., Glass Parts and Labour Charges. The detailed and exhaustive Surveyor Report has already been placed on the record by the Complainant, which is legal and correct. It is further averred that the complainant was not vigilant. She has not informed the OP, immediately after the alleged accident. She has not reported the matter to the police regarding the alleged accident. The false and frivolous complaint is liable to be dismissed, with compensatory costs to the tune of Rs.20,000/- under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the factum with regard to ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the vehicle was got insured by the complainant from the OP. It is also admitted that the complainant reported the accident on phone on 25.05.2018 to the OP and the facts regarding appointed a Surveyor for assessing the loss is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved that she is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-08-DG-7686. The copy of the RC has been proved as Ex.C-1. The complainant has also proved that her vehicle was got insured from the OP, vide policy Ex.C-2. Perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that this was effective from 04.04.2018 to 03.04.2019. The complainant has alleged that on 18.05.2018, the driver of the complainant Gurpreet Singh was driving the vehicle, suddenly a stray animal came infront of the vehicle and it has caused extensive damage to the vehicle. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP. Jasjeet Singh Hora was appointed as the surveyor, who assessed the loss. All the documents were provided to the surveyor and he assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs.42,150/- without giving any reasons. She has proved on record the bill of repair Ex.C-3 and Surveyor Report Ex.C-4. The complainant has alleged that the OP sent a letter to the complainant that the file is being closed on the ground that the driving license is not valid for the given type of vehicle.

7.                The OPs have alleged that the amount of Rs.42,150/- was rightly assessed as a loss after deducting the amounts which are legally liable to be deducted on the metal parts due to depreciation, Rubber parts and Glass parts alongwith labour charges. It has further been alleged that the claimant is not entitled to any relief as no FIR or DDR was ever got registered by the complainant. Even during the investigation, the husband of the complainant or the complainant never co-operated with the surveyor.

8.                The complainant has produced on record the estimate of the repair of the car Ex.C-3, which shows that the Aujla Motors assessed the loss for Rs.76,656/- and Ex.C-4 is the report of Jasjeet Singh Hora, wherein after investigation, he has recommended that damages sustained by the vehicle are fresh and accidental in nature and coincide with the cause and nature of the accident. However, after deducting the depreciation and other charges, he assessed the loss Rs.42,150/-, but the claim of the complainant was closed on the ground that despite the letters and reminders sent, they have not complied with the required documents and another point on which this file was closed that the driving license is not valid for the given type of vehicle. The documents Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 are the driving license of the driver Gurpreet and the class of the vehicle is MCWG and LMV. Ex.C-8 shows that the driving license of the Gurpreet was valid from 13 October, 2014 till 12 October, 2034, meaning thereby that at the time of accident, the driving license was valid. The OPs have alleged that despite the letters and reminders, the documents were not sent, but the OP has not produced on record any letter or reminder to prove that the complainant was ever asked to produce the documents rather the letter Ex.C-5 itself shows that the documents were supplied to them that is why they had closed the claim file as the DL was not valid for the given type of vehicle. This itself shows that since the documents were supplied to them, they had gone through the documents and came this conclusion. So, this contention that the documents were not supplied is not valid and not tenable. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011, decided on 03.07.2017, in a case titled as ‘Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited’, that ‘the driver holding a license to drive light motor vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that category. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a transport vehicle and Omni Bus, 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 road-roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 KG and holder of a driving license to drive class of light motor vehicle as provided in Section 10 (2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or Omni Bus’.

                   In the present case, perusal of the RC of the vehicle Ex.C-1 shows that the unladen weight of this vehicle is 1000 KG and gross vehicle weight is 1600 KG. So, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the gross vehicle weight as well as unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 KG, therefore, it is covered in the class of light motor vehicle. The driving license Ex.C-8 shows that the driver was competent to drive MCWG i.e. Motorcycle with Gear and LMV i.e. Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore, closing the claim on the ground that the driving license is not valid for the given type of vehicle, is wrong and illegal and thus the same is hereby set-aside and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. As per provision of Section 64 UM of the insurance Act, 1938, in case there is any loss of more than Rs.20,000/-, then a report is must as it is required not only to assess the loss but also to ascertain as to whether the claim is genuine or not or even to see as to whether there has been any breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The surveyor M/s Jasjeet Singh Hora & Co. was appointed, who assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs.42,150/-. So, the OP is directed to make the payment of Rs.42,150/- as assessed by the Surveyor alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 18.05.2018, till its realization. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

19.06.2023          Member                         Member              President