Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 89.
Instituted on : 27.02.2018.
Decided on : 15.05.2019
Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Wazir Singh, age 30 year, R/o Village Bhali Anandpur, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 United India Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager, D. Park, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
2 United India Insurance Company Limited. Through its Senior Branch Manager, Sun Rise Hotel Mata Rani Road, opposite M. Corporation, Ludhiana- 14008, Punjab.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of a car Hyundai I-10 bearing registration No. HR-46D-3373 which was insured from opposite party No. 1 through the opposite party No. 2 vide policy No. 2008013116P104218182. On 24.04.2017, the car in question overturned in ditches and the car was completely damaged. After that complainant informed the opposite parties and police report was also lodged in this regard. That the all relevant documents were submitted and formalities as required by the company were completed with respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 appointed the surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle, who found that the vehicle in question was totally damaged. It is alleged that despite the several requests of complainant, the company has not released the amount of the total loss of the vehicle in question. On 18.01.2018, the complainant also served a legal notice to respondent No. 2, upon which the respondent No. 2 has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter Ref. No. MDMO:MT:2018:1128 dated 12.02.2018. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay total value of vehicle assessed at the time of insurance by the respondents i.e. Rs.5,77,559/- on account of total damage claim and Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of financial loss due to non settling the claim alongwith Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that No Claim was passed after due investigation by the insurance company. It is further submitted that as per report of investigator, at the time of accident Manoj Kumar was driving the car and not Dharambir as told by insured. Therefore, the claim is not payable. It is further submitted that the accident took place on dated 22.04.2017 and insured lodged the DDR No. 222/17 on the same day in PS Sadar Bhiwani in which it is written that : “a cow come at once, I tried my best but the car fell down in the ditches”. This shows that at the time of accident Manoj Kumar was driving the car. As per the investigation report also, Manoj Kumar was driving the car at the time of accident. Therefore, no claim was rightly passed. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite parties.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/a, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and has closed his evidence on dated 15.05.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW1/B and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence on dated 15.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide Ex.C11/Ex.R7. Through this letter the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the respondent insurance company. So the claim was repudiated as No Claim. The insurance company has not mentioned the detail regarding the facts which has been concealed by the complainant from the insurance company but the same was mentioned in the written statement as well as in the affidavit. The main contention of the respondent insurance company is that as per DDR complainant Manoj was driving the vehicle and as per survey report Ex.R3 prepared by Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jain, it has been mentioned in the column of driver that the name of driver is Dharambir s/o Rameshwar Datt. But as per investigation report Ex.R4, the respondent company tried to establish that Manoj Kuimar s/o Wazir Singh i.e. complainant was driving the vehicle. Respondent insurance company also placed on record a photocopy of statement of one Dharambir which is Ex.R5 and one another statement of Mr. Deepak s/o Sh.Darshan Lal as Ex.R6. The insurance company has placed on record above mentioned documents and repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has concealed that he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident which is proved through DDR Ex.R2 and as per the statement of Dharambir Ex.R5. But as per the complainant Mr. Dharambir s/o Sh. Rameshwar Datt was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. After considering the documents, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company. On the other hand the complainant argued that initially the DDR Ex.C7/Ex.R2 was got registered on the statement of complainant, in which an information regarding the accident was given before the concerned police station and thereafter a supplementary statement was also recorded by the investigation officer on 20.10.2017 which is Ex.C8. In the statement it has been mentioned that at the time of accident Mr. Dharambir s/o Sh.Rameshwar Dutt was driving the vehicle. This statement was recorded by the police on dated 20.10.2017 and the same was placed on record as Ex.C8. We have also perused all the relevant documents placed on record by both the parties.
6. The main contention of the insurance company is regarding the concealment of fact. The complainant placed on record Ex.C3 driving licence of Mr. Dharambir and Ex.C14 his own driving licence. The perusal of these documents itself shows that both the driving licenses were valid and effective to drive the vehicle in question i.e. Hyundai I-10 bearing No.HR-46D-3373. The bare perusal of Ex.C1 itself shows that the policy of the vehicle is of commercial vehicle policy and the driving licence of driver Dharambir placed on record as Ex.C3 is for LMV-NT-Car, TRV Vestible bus and driving licence of Manoj Kumar placed on record as Ex.C15 is for LMV(NTPT), Tractor, scooter, M.cycle, car only. In this regard, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.240 of 2017 decided on 06.03.2018 titled as Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. We have also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 03.07.2017 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan versus oriental insurance company limited whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, 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 a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
6. Perusal of aforesaid law itself shows that the holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the license is required to drive a transport vehicle. Perusal of Ex.C2(Registration Certificate) itself shows that the gross weight of the vehicle is 1420kg and unladen weight 1003kgs. Meaning thereby, both the drivers were having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Moreover, as per his report Ex.R3, the surveyor has assessed a loss of Rs.437059/- on net of salvage basis. Perusal of the survey report Ex.R3 shows that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.437059/- and opposite party is liable to pay the same.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.437059/-(Rupees four lac thirty seven thousand fifty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 27.02.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.06.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
