BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 53 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 17.2.2014.
Date of Decision: 31.7.2015
Narender Kumar Attri aged 50 years son of Shri Suraj Bhan district Bhiwani, resident of House No.M-40, Old Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. having its registered office at Unit No.401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurala Road, Andheri East, through its authorized signatory.
- Uma Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Insurance Services, Head Office Opposite Choudhary Bansi Lal General Hospital, Near Punjab Kesri Office, Bhiwani, through its Prop. …...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Present:- Shri A.L.Hans, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1.
OP No.2 already exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of a Scooty bearing registration No.HR-16L-0247 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant alleged that on 16.3.2013 the above said vehicle had met with an accident and badly damaged and intimation in this regard was given to the opposite parties immediately. It is further alleged that as per assurance of company surveyor he got repaired his vehicle from MRM Honda, Bhiwani and spent Rs.6214/- being repair charges. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the OP for making payment of insured amount but they did not pay any heed. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP No.1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant was driving his own scooter but the DL was expired before nine years. It is alleged that the complainant submitted his claim along with DL particulars date of issue 30.3.1999 valid up to 4.11.2004. The competent authority of the insurance company has taken decision with regard to DL of the insured found expired before accident and claim of the complainant was repudiated and he was informed accordingly. However, the surveyor and loss assessor submits the loss of damage to the tune of Rs.5150.50 paisa to insurance company. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of Insurance Policy, Annexure 2 Photostat copy of letter dated 1.2.2013, Annexure C3 & C4 Photostat copies of DL, Annexure C5 Photostat copy of RC, Annexure C6 & C7 Photostat copies of cash memo and Annexure C8 Photostat copy of DL along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Piyush Shankar, Manager of the Insurance Company.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of the complainant. He submitted that the complainant prior to the date of accident i.e. 16.3.2013 had applied for the issue of the driving license to the licensing authority and same was issued to the complainant on 17.9.2013, the photocopy of said DL is Annexure C-4. He further submitted that the complainant was not disqualified from holding the driving license. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Om Parkash 2010 (4) latest judicial reports page 711.
8. The counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that as on 16.3.2013, the date of accident, the complainant was not holding any valid driving license. The complainant, for settlement of his claim, had supply the photocopy of driving license Annexure C-3 to the opposite party. The said driving license was valid upto 4.11.2004 and as such the complainant was not holding any driving license on 16.3.2013 when the scooty in question met with an accident.
9. Admittedly, on 16.3.2013, when the accident took place with the scooty in question of the complainant, the complainant was not holding any valid driving license. The counsel for the complainant has referred the DL Annexure C-4 which has been obtained by the complainant on 17.9.2013, after about 6 months from the date of accident. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Om Parkash’s case (supra), we hold that the complainant was not disqualified from obtaining and holding the driving license Hence, the opposite party could have settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis at 75% of the amount of loss. In this case the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.5250/- vide his report Annexure-B. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award Rs.3900/- to the complainant as compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3900/- to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of passing of this order by cheque of the DD to be sent on the address of the complainant by registered post, otherwise the opposite party shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment.
.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31.7.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
3 (Balraj Singh)
Member.
to this insured sum, with litigation cost of Rs.1500/-. This order be complied with by the Opposite party within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the opposite party shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment on the amount of Rs.30,000/-.
