Haryana

StateCommission

A/590/2018

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

22 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                         

                                                          Date of Institution: 08.05.2018

                                                          Date of final hearing:22.03.2023

                                                          Date of Pronouncement: 22.03.2023

 

 

APPEAL NO.590 OF 2018

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

                      

The Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Ambala. Now represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office at SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                             ….Appellant

Versus

 

 

1. Ajit Singh son of Shri Ram Singh, resident of Village Moriwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. M/s. Garg Motors, Hisar Road, Sirsa through its Manager/Authorized Person/Incharge.

 

 

1. Respondents

 

 

         

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President

                   Ms. manjula, member

 

                                                                                                                   

 

Present:     Shri Nitin Gupta, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Dheeraj Narula, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with.

                  

 

 

 

 

PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

 

ORDER

 

 

1. For the reasons specified therein, the miscellaneous application is allowed and the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.
2. Opposite party No.1-The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ambala through its authorized signatory has filed the instant appeal under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for challenging the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby complaint preferred by complainant Ajit Singh under Section 12 of the Act was allowed and the opposite party No.1 was directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of survey report as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The opposite party No.1 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. While filing the complaint, the complainant had pleaded that he purchased the vehicle i.e. Autorickshaw/Alfa Passenger Diesel BSII G 435 A III bearing registration No.HR-57-A/7025 by paying an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- inclusive of Rs.50,000/- paid in cash as advance and the remaining amount financed by the complainant from finance company. The complainant got financed the said vehicle from opposite party No.1 and insurance papers were filled up by opposite party No.2 being the dealing agency of opposite party No.1 at their own level and thus, M/s Garg Motors was also having the legal liability qua the said insurance of vehicle of the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 09.10.2015 when the complainant started from Bus stand, Sirsa towards village Moriwala on his auto rickshaw alongwith passengers, namely Manjit, Bhajan Kaur and Kashmiro Bai. The complainant himself was driving the auto rickshaw on correct left side of the road at a very moderate speed whereas the passengers were sitting behind him. At about 12:00 O’clock when they reached near Mahaluxmi Paper Mill, a swift car came from the opposite side, which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the car overtook the vehicle going ahead of them and on seeing the negligent driving by its driver, the complainant took the auto rickshaw down from the road despite the same, the driver of the car hit the car into the auto rickshaw of the complainant and complainant as well as other passengers sustained serious injuries on their person and the auto rickshaw of the complainant was also badly damaged. The complainant informed the opposite party No.1 about the accident and damage to the auto rickshaw in the said accident. Thereafter, the complainant approached M/s Garg Motors and as per their asking, the damaged auto rickshaw was taken to the agency where also opposite party No.1 was informed by opposite party No.2 of their own and the authorized surveyor of opposite party No.2 paid visit at the agency of M/s Garg Motors and clicked the photographs of the damaged auto rickshaw. The auto rickshaw was still lying at the workshop of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 collected all the relevant papers from the complainant with the assurance that the claim of the damaged vehicle will be given very soon. The damage to the vehicle was assessed by Shri Harish Sethi, surveyor of the company who assessed the loss as Rs.1,50,750/-, which fact was duly conveyed to the company and as such, the complainant had claimed genuine claim of Rs.1,75,000/-, price of the damaged vehicle because the vehicle of the complainant was a total loss. Inspite of supplying of the driving licence and other connected papers as demanded by the opposite parties, the opposite party No.1 delayed the disbursement of the claim and in furtherance of their malafideintention, they issued the correspondence regarding demand of driving license of the complainant which had already been supplied by the complainant vide correspondence dated 06.03.2017. The complainant was legally entitled for disbursement of the claim of damaged auto rickshaw but the opposite party No.1 failed to disburse the claim. Hence, the complaint.

 

4. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objection that the complainant was neither maintainable nor sustainable in the eyes of law and not on true facts as the earlier complaint filed by the complainant had been dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, the second complaint was not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was pleaded that intimation regarding the accidental loss of three wheeler was received by the insurance company and accordingly, Shri Harish Sethi was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor to conduct the survey in presence of the complainant. On 10.10.2016, the surveyor submitted his final report to the company assessing loss of the three wheeler worth Rs.1,50,750/- on net salvage basis. However, the injured had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance company which rendered him to be disentitled to get any claim from opposite party No.1. It was further alleged that the driver/insured Ajit Singh of three wheeler was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.  The driving licence of Ajit Singh was valid for motor cycle, MLV-NT Car and LMV-Tractor whereas insured vehicle was a transport vehicle which was registered and insured as a transport vehicle for which transport licence was required. As such, Ajit Singh was driving the vehicle in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such, opposite party No.1 had rightly repudiated the claim of insured on 05.04.2017. It was further pleaded that the insured was not having a valid route permit pertaining to the alleged three wheeler at the time of alleged accident in question, which was also a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, opposite party No.1 was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Accordingly, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite party No.2 in its separate written version while taking certain preliminary objections pleaded on merits that the complainant had approached the opposite party No.1 for repair of the vehicle who conveyed regarding the damage of the vehicle to the insurance company at the instance of the complainant and accordingly, the surveyor of opposite party No.1 clicked the photographs of the damaged vehicle in the workshop. The matter was between the insurance company and the complainant whereas opposite party No.2 had no concern with the survey or claim of the vehicle. It was further pleaded that the damaged vehicle is still lying with the opposite party No.2 and it also not deposited any claim or any amount regarding the repair of the said vehicle.
6. In support of his case, the complainant filed his affidavit Ex.C-1 and relied upon documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.14. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 produced affidavit Ex.R-1 of Karan Singh Chaudhary and tendered documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-9 whereas opposite party No.2 produced affidavit Ex.RW2/A of Basant Garg.
7. After hearing counsel for the parties and ongoing through the evidence, the District Consumer Commission observed that opposite party No.1 arbitrarily and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant though they were under legal obligation to reimburse and pay the loss of the complainant as per report of the surveyor, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party No.1 to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of survey report as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Opposite party No.1 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. Aggrieved of the impugned order, opposite party No.1 has filed the present appeal and pleaded that the District Consumer Forum was not justified in accepting the complaint and directing the opposite party No.1 to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of survey report and also to pay the composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. On the other hand, counsel appearing for respondent No.1-complainant has stated that no case is made out for setting aside the impugned order and therefore the appeal be dismissed.
9. Having heard counsel for the appellant on the one hand and counsel for respondent No.1 on the other, the State Commission finds that the complainant was owner of the vehicle in question which was insured with opposite party No.1 and during the validity of the insurance, it met with an accident on 09.10.2015 and the same was damaged and due intimation was given to opposite party No.1.  The complainant lodged the claim andsubmitted the requisite documents. Pursuant to the same, a surveyor was appointed who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report Ex.R-8 whereby it was recommended that total loss basis settlement at Rs.1,66,250/- less salvage value of damaged vehicle without registration certificate of Rs.15,000/-, less policy clause of Rs.500/- and liability on net of salvage basis to the tune of Rs.1,50,750/-. Further, opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant’s licence dated 17.12.1996 was valid upto 31.12.2025, which was found to be valid for driving only non-transport vehicles whereas the insured vehicle in question was a transport vehicle. As such, the complainant was driving the insured vehicle at the time of alleged loss without a valid and effective driving licence in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance company, which was in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. In his affidavit Ex.C-1, the complainant deposed all the averments made in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14. As per the award dated 16.11.2017 passed by the MACT, Sirsa in case titled as Ajit Singh Vs. Yashpal @ Jassu etc. in which the New India Assurance Company through its Branch Manager was also impleaded as a party reveals that this award was passed in favour of present complainant qua the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. No doubt, claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive transport vehicle but repudiation of the claim by opposite party No.1 appears to be arbitrary and illegal. The copy of registration certificate of the vehicle in question  Ex.C-10 reveals that in column of class of vehicle three wheeler has been mentioned and in the type of body auto rickshaw (Pass) has been mentioned and similarly in the copy of policy schedule Ex.C-2 in the column of type of commercial vehicle it has been mentioned as passenger carrying three wheeler. The perusal of form 21, copy of which is Ex.C-12 reveals that it finds mention class of vehicle as LMV. As such, there is no doubt that the vehicle was covered under the definition of light motor vehicle.
11. The opposite party No.1 laid emphasis on the fact that the complainant was holding a licence meant for driving LMV but not allowed to drive the vehicle LMV transport which vehicle as per endorsement mentioned in the driving licence of the complainant. The perusal of the copy of driving licence of complainant Ex.C-8 reveals that the complainant was authorized to drive the vehicle M.C. with gear, LMV-NT car, LMV-Tractor only. As per provisions of Section 2(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, did not exceed 7500 kilograms. As per copy of registration certificate of vehicle in question, the laden weight of this three wheeler is 800 kilograms which is less than 7500 kilograms. Meaning thereby, that the vehicle fell under the category of light motor vehicle. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mukand Dewegan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, 2016(4) SCC 298 and judgments of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rampal and others, FAO No.1719 of 2011 (O&M) decided on 15.12.2017.
12. From the above, it is made out that opposite party No.1 arbitrarily and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant though it was under a legal obligation to reimburse and pay loss of the complainant as per report of the surveyor. Thus, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of complainant Ajit Singh against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, but in accordance with law.
14. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
15. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the law. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.

 

 

 

(T.P.S. MANN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

(MANJULA)

MEMBER

 

Pronounced On: 22.03.2023

MS