State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vikas Road Carriers Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite ... on 5 November, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 05-11-2007 Complaint Case No. C-21/1999 M/s Vikas Road Carriers Ltd, Complainant Through its Member/director Through Shri Harvinder Singh Chadha, Mr. Shankar Das with Garage NO. 55, Gulabi Bagh, Mr. B. Shekhar, Delhi-110007. Advocates. Versus M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Party, Through its Branch Manager, 617/A/620,Som Dutt Chamber II, 9-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) On account of total damage to the truck due to fire, the complainant company has claimed compensation for Rs.6 lacs with 24% interest from the OP Insurance Company.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the truck bearing No.HR-38-A-3591 belonging to the complainant was insured with the OP for the period 28.2.1997 to 27.2.1998 for an insured value of Rs.5,00,000/- against risk of theft and fire. The said truck was driven by the driver (Amrik Singh) of the complainant who was holding a valid driving license and was fully authorized to drive the heavy goods vehicles/trucks. On 12.4.1997 at about 4.45 a.m. the said truck met with an accident and it was totally damaged due to the fire that broke in the engine on account of the accident. The complainant intimated the OP about the damage of the said truck and submitted a claim before it. The OP appointed a surveyor to assess the estimated loss but the OP deliberately failed and neglected to pay the insurance amount which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
3. OP denied any deficiency in service on its part and raised the following contentions: -
(i) On enquiry it was found that the driver had no effective driving license at the time of the accident. The complainant had with held the correct date of expiry of driving license. The particulars of the drivers license were intentionally not disclosed. The complainant had not even given the particulars as appears from the surveyors report dated 12.5.1997. The same information was again with held by the complainant from the final surveyors, who submitted report dated 5.9.1997.
(ii) That the Investigator was also appointed to approach the RTO and it was found that the driving license of the driver Shri Amrik Singh was only valid upto 2.1.1997. The loss had occurred on 12.4.1997, whereas the driving license of Shri Amrik Singh had expired on 2.1.1997.
(iii) That the complainant had wrongly given the validity period of driving license as 2.10.1997. As the driver was not holding an effective driving license, the claim was declined vide letter dated 7.1.1999. The OP had processed the claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
4. It appears that the date of validity was mistakenly read as 02-01-1997 whereas it was 02-10-1997 and that the digit 0 was not there. Even the Surveyor who was appointed by the Insurance Company and assessed the loss also has nowhere commented about the expiry of the licence. It was subsequently when he visited the MLO, Mall Road office, Delhi and contacted the dealing assistant that date of expiry was found to be 02-01-1997. However, there is no certificate obtained by the Surveyor or investigator from the Transport Authority to the effect that driving licence produced by the complainant was valid upto 02-01-1997. It is only on the oral information given by the dealing assistant to the Surveyor of the OP-Insurance Company that the claim was repudiated whereas the Surveyor had recommended for payment of damage on total loss basis.
5. Aforesaid facts persuade us to allow the complaint with the direction to the OP-Insurance Company to indemnify the loss assed by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs,. 2,95,000/- with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.
6. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
7. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
9. Announced on the 5th November , 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj