Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/39/2021

Ram Karan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Pardeep Kumar Sheoran

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

                              

                                                                   Complaint No.: - 39 of 2021.

Date of Institution: - 12.02.2021.

                                                                   Date of Decision: - 30.07.2024.

 

Ram Karan son of Shri Dalip, resident of village Kheri Battar, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized signatory, Branch Office at Gurgaon, DO-14, Gurgaon, New Colony, above SBI, Gurgaon.

                                                                         …...Opposite Parties. 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE

     CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

BEFORE: -   Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                    Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member   

 

Present: -    Shri Pardeep Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.

Shri Vinod Kumar Chahar, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER: -

 

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that his Mahindra Bolero Camper DX bearing registration No. HR-19J-3048 was insured with the OP vide policy No.22140031180160174181 from 9.8.2018 to 8.8.2019.  It was alleged that on 1.12.2018, the insured vehicle was met with an accident on Dadri-Loharu Road and vehicle was damaged, which was driven by Shri Ajeet Singh son of Shri Meer Singh at that time.  It was further alleged that the information was given to the OP and the surveyor of the OP Company had inspected the vehicle and told to take the vehicle in the workshop of Supreme Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Loharu Road, Bhiwani for its repair.  The complainant has requested the OP to get repair the vehicle, but they have asked the complainant to get repair the vehicle by paying repair charges and assured that Company would pay all the amount of repair charges of vehicle.  It was further alleged that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- as advance payment with the Supreme Mobiles on the assurance of the opposite party and also purchased cabin of camper gold in sum of Rs.62,000/- from Vishawkarma Body Maker, Bhiwani.  The vehicle in question has been repaired by Supreme Mobile, Bhiwani and prepared a total bill of Rs. 2,44,743/-.  It was further alleged that the complainant had supplied all the requisite documents to the OP Company with the request for payment of above said amount.  On this, opposite party has asked to deposit Rs.5500/- on account of surveyor charges and he deposited the same on 13.9.2019 with the OP Company.  It was further alleged that the complainant has paid total Rs. 3,16,243/- (Rs. 4000/- Toe Charges, Rs. 2,44,743/- repair charges, Rs. 62,000/- cost of cabin, Rs. 5500/- surveyor charges).  It was further averred that the complainant had supplied all the required documents, but the OPs failed in settling his claim despite repeated requests and repudiated the claim vide letter/message dated 2.9.2020 on the ground that “driver was not authorized to drive LMV class of vehicle at the time of accident which is violation of policy terms & conditions and also against Motor Vehicle Act, 1988”.  It was further averred that driver Ajeet Singh was having a valid DL No. HR-1820110017492 dated 10.3.2011 issued by Licensing Authority, Loharu by virtue of which driver Ajeet Singh has been authorized to drive M. C. with Gear, LMV, 3 Wheeler NT only.  It was further averred that a legal notice dated 20.11.2020 was got issued to the OP Company, but to no effect.  The complainant further alleged that due to act and conduct of the OP, he suffers mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the Opposite Party had filed written statement stating that the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief in the present complaint, as the vehicle was being used against the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, because at the time of accident the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle in question and not holding a valid and effective driving license on the day of occurrence, therefore, the claim was repudiated. It is averred that as per survey report dated 13.9.2019 of Shri Pardeep K. Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who surveyed the vehicle and assessed a loss of Rs. 2,12,982/- and it was not found payable because of the violation of the policy.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A, and documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and closed his evidence on 21.3.2023.  Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, RW2/A, RW3/A documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R10 and closed his evidence on dated 19.12.2023.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the driver of the vehicle Ajeet Singh was having valid DL and placed his reliance upon case law titled as Jagdish Kumar Sood Vs UIIC, Civil Appeal No. 240 of 2017, decided by Hon’ble Supreme court of India. 

7.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the driver of insured vehicle Ajeet Singh was not holding a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question on the date of accident, so, vide letter dated 2.9.2020 his claim file was closed as “No Claim”.

8.                We have given a considerable thought to the arguments of the learned counsel for the OP and in our view the arguments of counsel for OP has no substance at all.  The arguments and plea of ld. counsel for the OP that the driver of insured vehicle Ajeet Singh was not holding a valid driving license is not tenable, because it is clear from the copy of DL Ex. C6, that the DL of Ajeet Singh was valid for Non-Tr. Valid from 10.3.2011 to 9.3.2031, hence, driver was competent to drive the vehicle in question on the date of accident.  It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that “no separate endorsement on license is required to drive transport vehicle or light motor vehicle class, gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg-License held valid-Order of Tribunal absolving insurance company set aside”.  Admittedly, the vehicle in question was met with an accident and suffered damages.  It is also admitted that complainant has incurred Rs.2,44,743/-  on the repair of insured vehicle as per Tax Invoice ref. No. INS20C000070 dated 31.5.2019 (Ex. C3) of Supreme Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.62,000/-cost of cabin of vehicle in question, as per receipt dated 24.5.2019 (Ex. C5) issued by Shree Vishavkarma Body Maker stating that one old cabin Bolero camber was sold.  The bill Ex. C3 is genuine and receipt Ex. C5 appears to be a statement for sale of cabin without any genuine Bill/Invoice.  With a view to ascertain loss of the vehicle due to accident, the OP had appointed Pardeep K. Gupta, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Charted Engineer, approved valuer, who submitted his report dated 13.9.2019, where loss was assessed for Rs. 2,12,982/- giving item wise details of estimated cost and admissible assessed loss.  The Surveyor Report is considered an authentic document to know the loss of accidental vehicle.  Accordingly, relying of the report, we hereby accept the loss for Rs. 2,12,982/-.  We are surprised to note that the OP has not taken cognizance of the said report prepared by the Agency engaged by them and repudiated the claim on the pretext of driver not having valid driving license, which is not a valid reason for repudiation.

9.                Now, the question arises whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or not?  In our view, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, because as per the Ex. C6 the detail of DL of Ajeet Singh issued by the Licensing Authority, Loharu, it is clear that the DL is valid till 9.3.2031, but even then the OP has failed in settling the claim of complainant.  The OP has even failed to prove on record with some other documentary evidence for not settling the claim other than plea of driver not having a valid driving license, which has been proved false and not acceptable in view of documentary evidence placed on record by complainant vide Ex. C6.  It appears that the OP has knowingly and intentionally not settled the claim.  The OP cannot take shelter behind ifs and buts, while it is clearly proved on record that the DL of the driver of insured vehicle was valid at the time of accident.  Thus, there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and they cannot be allowed to run away from their responsibility.

10.    Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the deficiency in service on the part of OP in rejecting the subject claim of the complainant is proved beyond any iota of doubt. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and directs the OP as under: -

i)        To release amount of Rs.2,12,982/- i.e. the repair charges of the insured vehicle to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident of the complainant’s vehicle i.e. w.e.f. 1.12.2018 till its realization.

ii)       To pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs.

iii)      To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.

11.                    The opposite parties shall make the compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of this, failing which the amount will attract interest @ 12% per annum, for the same period, till actual realization.  The copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per the rules. The Order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.