Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/149

Rupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

L.C.Bector Adv.

11 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 149 dated 13.03.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 11.08.2022.

 

Rupinder Singh aged about 25 years son of Sh. Gurjit Singh, R/o.  Bant Cold Drinks, VPO Mandiala Kalan, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                            ..…Complainant 

•  

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Grand Walk Mall, 4^th Floor, Ludhiana, through its Manager.                                                                                                                                                               …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

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

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

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he insured his Tata Ace bearing registration No.PB-10-DZ-4839 from the OP. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 24.05.2018, the insured vehicle met with an accident whereby it was damaged. The complainant intimated the OP about the accident and also lodged a claim. The OP deputed a surveyor who received all the relevant documents from the complainant and assured him that the claim would be paid soon. The complainant sent his vehicle to M/s. Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Khanna for repair. However, the OP kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and failed to settle the claim. Eventually, vide order dated 03.10.2018, the OP repudiated the claim on false and frivolous grounds. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.1,10,090/- on the repair of the vehicle from his own pocket. The repudiation of the claim on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to pay the claim of Rs.1,10,090/- along with interest @12% per annum and further the OP be made to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.  

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  According to the OP, after the receipt of the claim, it was registered and processed. Mr. Charanjit Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for survey and assessment of the loss. The surveyor inspected the vehicle, took photographs and collect the documents and submitted his final survey report dated 12.07.2018 along with documents assessing the loss at Rs.58,500/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The OP has further pleaded that Mr. Ravinder Singh son of Gurjit Singh was driving the insured vehicle at the time of the accident but he was holding driving licence valid from 06.06.2013 to 05.06.2033 which permitted him to drive MCWG (Motor Cycle Without gear) and LMV only whereas the said licence was not valid for the vehicle in question. As a result, the claim was repudiated vide pre-repudiation letter dated 03.10.2018 and repudiation letter dated 16.01.2019. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A Sh. Prabhjot Singh, Senior Divisional Manager of the OP, affidavit Ex. RW1/B of Sh. Japneet Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and affidavit Ex. RW1/C of Sh. Charanjit Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R34 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.  

6.                In this case, the claim in respect of the accident of the insured vehicle has been repudiated vide letter Ex. R1 dated 16.01.2019 on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by Ravinder Singh 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 driving licence of Ravinder Singh is available on the file as Ex. R4. As per registration certificate Ex. R5 of the insured vehicle, the unladen weight of the vehicle is 840 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 840 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. R4 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 OP and in his report Ex. R12, the surveyor Charanjit Singh has assessed the loss at Rs.58,500/-. The report Ex. R12 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 OP shall be liable to pay the claim which has been assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex. R12.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to consider and reimburse the claim strictly in accordance with the survey report Ex. R12 with interest @6% 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 OP is further made to pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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 rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Rupinder Singh Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.                       CC/19/149 

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

                   Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to consider and reimburse the claim strictly in accordance with the survey report Ex. R12 with interest @6% 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 OP is further made to pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five 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.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.