Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/321

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

L.C.Bector Adv.

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

-

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 321 dated 09.07.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 20.01.2023.

 

Ashok Kumar aged about 41 years son of Sh. Prem lal, r/o. Street No.5, Nai Abadi, Samrala Road, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., B.O. G.T. Road, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Regional Manager.                                                                                                                              …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 11 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased insurance policy No.2006033117P108207705 for his vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.PB-10DZ-1757 w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018. It is stated that on 02.01.2018, the complainant was driving the said Bolero and was on his way from Morinda to Bassi Pathana, then suddenly two stray cows fighting with each other came on the road and in order to save the accident, the complainant turned the vehicle to its right hand side and from the complainant’s side hit with truck No.PB-13AL-8777 loaded with oil. Both the vehicles damaged badly. The complainant intimated the matter and lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 who deputed surveyor who get all the relevant papers from the complainant and assured him that the damages will be paid to him very soon. The complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop and visited the opposite parties many times for the repair of the vehicle but they evaded the matter on one pretext or the other and failed to repair and settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant has suffered great mental agony due to non-cooperative behaviour of the opposite parties and he is using taxi since date of accident. Opposite party No.1 has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 06.03.2018 on flimsy ground that the driving licence of the complainant is not valid. However, the complainant has effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss suffered in accident and also Rs.10,000/- as mental torture, agony due to repudiation of the claim. In the end, a prayer had been made to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of vehicle in accident and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture and agony.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. The opposite parties alleged that the complainant lodged the claim regarding damage to his Bolero bearing registration No.PB-10DZ-1757 and immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for survey and assessment of loss. The said surveyor inspected the vehicle, took photographs, collected documents and submitted their final/spot survey report dated 21.02.2018 along with documents and assessed the loss of Rs.21,982/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The said Mahindra Boleri Maxi Truck is goods carrier and is also insured as goods carrier. The complainant submitted his driving licence No.PB261999025005 valid for driving LMV and MCWG class of vehicle only and not valid for goods vehicle. After receipt of final survey report, the claim was scrutinized and the claim was found not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy and the same was repudiated vide letter dated 06.03.2018 with observation, “While going through the claim file of the vehicle having registration No.PB-10DZ-1757 it has been observed that the driving licence of the driver Mr. Ashok Kumar driving the vehicle at the time of loss with DL No.PB-261999025005 is valid for driving LMV and MCWG class of vehicle only and not valid for driving goods vehicle. Thus due to invalid driving licence your claim stands repudiated.” The opposite parties further alleged that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. 

The insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer on the basis of utmost good faith and both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.               

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the facts stated in preliminary objections and brief facts of the case and denied the deficiency of service on their parties. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of proposal form dated 08.09.2017, Ex. C2 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018, Ex. C3 is the copy of final/spot survey report dated 21.02.2018, Ex. C4 is the copy of bill dated 21.02.2018 of the surveyor, Ex. C5 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 06.03.2018, Ex. C6 is the copy of General Diary Details No.14 dated 02.01.2018, Ex. C7 is the copy of driving licence of the complainant, Ex. C8 is the copy of registration certificate No.PB-10-DZ-1757 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party  tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Prem Pahuja, Divisional Manager of opposite parties, affidavit Ex. RW2/A of Sh. Sandeep Kuamr,Surveyor and Loss Assessor along with document Ex. R1 is the copy of insurance certificate w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018, Ex. R2 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 06.03.2018, Ex. R3 is the copy of final/spot survey report dated 21.02.2018, Ex. R4 and Ex. R5 are the copies of estimate dated 05.01.2018 of Binta Denting and Painting, Ex. R6 to Ex. R9 are the copies of bills, Ex. R10 is the copy of general diary details No.14 dated 02.01.2018, Ex. R11 is the copy of driving licence of the complainant, Ex. R12 is the copy of registration certificate No.PB-10-DZ-1757, Ex. R13 is the proposal form dated 08.09.2017, Ex. R14 is the copy of motor claim form, Ex. R15, Ex. R16, Ex. R18 and Ex. R19 are the copies of photographs of the vehicle, Ex. R17 is the copy of motor claim intimation slip and closed the evidence.  

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

6.                Perusal of the record shows that the claim in respect of the accident of the insured vehicle has been repudiated vide letter Ex. C5=Ex. R2 dated 06.03.2018 on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by Ashok Kumar and he was holding a driving licence which was valid only for MCWG and LMV. Thus, the driver of the vehicle was not competent to drive the vehicle. The copy of driving licence of Ashok Kumar is available on the file as Ex. C7 = Ex. R11. As per registration certificate Ex. C8 = Ex. R12 of the insured vehicle, the unladen weight of the vehicle is 1450 Kg and the class of the vehicle is mentioned as LGV (Light goods vehicle). In Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance company Limited-Law Finder Doc Id#881800 (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011, decided on 03.07.2017 (S.C.) it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that Light Motor Vehicle as defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and 2(48). It was further held that such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994. It was further held that 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 and no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle or light motor vehicle class. In the instant case also, the gross weight of the vehicle, as stated above, is 1450 Kg which is less than 7500 Kg. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited case, it was not required that the driver must possess a driving licence having endorsement of transport vehicle and even if the driver holds a licence to drive LMV he was competent to drive the vehicle in question. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the driver was not competent to drive the vehicle in question on the basis of his licence Ex. C7 = Ex. R11 cannot be justified especially in the light of the law laid down in the afore cited case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby set aside.

7.                It is not disputed that in this case after the receipt of the claim, a surveyor  was appointed by the opposite parties and in his report Ex. C3 = Ex. R3, the surveyor Sh. Sandeep Kumar has assessed the loss at Rs.21,982/-. The report Ex. C3 = Ex. R3 has not been challenged by the complainant on any ground nor any evidence has been led by the complainant to prove that the report is faulty for some reason or the other. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the opposite parties shall be liable to pay the claim which has been assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex. C3 = Ex. R3.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to consider and reimburse the claim strictly in accordance with the survey report Ex. C3 = Ex. R2 with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual  payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The opposite parties are further made to pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Ashok Kumar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.                             CC/19/321

Present:       Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to consider and reimburse the claim strictly in accordance with the survey report Ex. C3 = Ex. R2 with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual  payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The opposite parties are further made to pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.