Punjab

Sangrur

CC/577/2017

Baghel Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Dhiraj Jindal

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    577

                                                Instituted on:      01.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       05.03.2018

 

Baghel Singh son of Chhota Singh, resident of Vill. Karail, Balran, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Co. Ltd. MICRO OFFFICE Khanouri Mandi, Distt. Sangrur-148001 (Punjab) through its Branch Manager.

2.             United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Railway Road, Sangrur 148 001 (Punjab) through its District Manager.

3.             United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. and Head Office: United India House, 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Satpaul Sharma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Baghel Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured his Tata 407 truck having registration number PB-06-V-1156 vide policy number 1117873116P101839032 for the period from 7.5.2016 to 6.5.2017 by paying the requisite premium.  The case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 24.11.2016 due to fog when he was going to supply milk and curd, as such the information of the accident was given to the OPs and the Ops appointed surveyor.  Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question was got repaired from the workshops of Hissar (Haryana), where he spent an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and submitted the claim papers to the Ops, but the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 17.8.2017 on the ground that the driver Birbal Singh was not having effective driving license at the time of accident of the vehicle.  It is further averred that Birbal Singh driver was having a valid driving license number PB-13200440069380 which was got renewed in view of section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the earlier license expired on 1.11.2016 whereas the renewal fee of Rs.250/- was deposited on 30.11.2016.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,60,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint  frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and that the complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the Ops under the policy for the period from 7.5.2016 to 6.5.2017.  Further it is admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident and the information of the same was given to the OPs, but the case of the Ops is that the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the driver Birbal Singh was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Further it is stated that as per the verification report issued by the District Transport Officer, Sangrur, the driving license of Balbir Singh expired on 1.11.2016 and the same was renewed only from 19.12.2016 to 1.11.2019, as such it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. 

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his Tata 407 truck bearing registration number PB-06-V-1156 from the OPs for the period from 7.5.2016 to 6.5.2017 by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.OP-2.  It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 24.11.2016 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, of which intimation was given to the OPs and the OPs appointed surveyor to assess the loss. But, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly and illegally repudiated on the ground of not having the effective driving license by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident on 24.11.2016.  

 

6.             In the present case, the ground of repudiation of the claim by the Ops is that on the date of accident i.e. 24.11.2016, the driver Shri Birbal Singh was not having a valid driving license as the same had already expired on 1.11.2016, whereas the driving license was renewed only on 19.12.2016 to 1.11.2019 by the District Transport Officer. Now, the question for determination before us is only whether the driver Birbal Singh was having a valid driving license at that time.   It is worth mentioning here that section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the renewal of driving licenses, which provides  (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving license issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry; Provided that in any case, where the application for the renewal of a license is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.  Now,  in the present case, the fact remains that the driving license of Shri Birbal Singh expired on 2.11.2016 and he applied for its renewal on 30.11.2016 by depositing the renewal fee of Rs.250/-, as is evident from the copy of receipt number Z-32549 dated 30.11.2016 (10.18) Ex.C-6, which clearly reveals that the driver Birbal Singh had applied for the renewal of the driving license within the stipulated period as provided in Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act.  The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rohit Marwaha versus Tarsem Kaur and others, wherein it is held that if the application for renewal of the driving license is made within 30 days of its expiry, it shall be renewed from the date of its expiry and if application for renewal is made after 30 days and before five years of its expiry, it shall be renewed from the date of such renewal.  Now, in view of this, we feel that the driving license of Birbal Singh was renewed from 1.11.2016 itself and now the OPs are duty bound to pay the claim of the complainant, as the driver Birbal Singh was having a valid driving license at the time of accident.  

 

7.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The complainant has produced the copies of the bills of the repairs as well as parts from Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-13 and when totalled, the total came to Rs.1,35,212/-, whereas the complainant has claimed Rs.1,60,000/-.  On the other hand, the Ops have not produced any copy of the survey report on record to show that how much loss was assessed by the surveyor.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they withheld the survey report.  In the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.1,35,212/- only.

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

9.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,35,212/- only along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 1.11.2017 till realisation. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation as well as an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        March 5, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member