State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vipan Kumar vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 February, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH.
Revision Petition No.165/2009
Date of institution:26.3.2009
Date of decision :22.2.2010
Vipan
Kumar, R/o H.No.1449/2, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh
--Appellant
V E R S US
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO
No.99-100, Sec.17-B, Chandigarh
through it Divisional Manager.
2] The ICICI Bank Limited having its Regional
Office at SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9, Chandigarh
through it Regional Manager.
.Respondents
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer
Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 24.2.2009 passed by
Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh.
Present: None for the appellant.
Sh.D.C.Kumar,advocate
for the respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2
BEFORE
: Honble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal,
President
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member
JUDGMENT
22.2.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1118 of 2008 was dismissed.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.
3.. The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ;
The Complainant had taken a comprehensive insurance policy for his Vehicle No. CH-02-1867 on 7.5.2008 from OP No.1 and the period of insurance was from 7.5.2008 to 6.5.2009. He purchased this car after availing a loan from OP No.2 for an amount of Rs.2.60 lacs. On 5.6.2008, he handed over the said car to one Mr. Davinder Kumar who had some personal work at Ludhiana. When the car was being driven by Davinder Kumar towards Ludhiana , it met with an accident on reaching Khamano. Thereafter, it was taken to M/s Joshi Auto Zone where the Surveyor of the OP No.1 Sh. Rajesh Wadhawan declared the vehicle total loss. Subsequently, the Complainant lodged his claim with the OP No.1 and asked it to release the claim amount as per the Insurance Cover. OP No.1, however, declined his claim on the ground that the car was being driven by an individual who was not holding a valid driving licence for commercial vehicles. Another point raised by the OP No.1 was that the accident took place in Punjab and the car was not having the route permit for Punjab. Further the complainant was forced to pay the EMI for the car which fell due on the 10th of each month of the British calendar. He then approached OP No.2 and tried to explain the factual position to their executives, but they in turn stated that the loan EMI repayments must be continued as per the schedule and any default would be dealt with severely by their recovery wing.
This caused great harassment to the Complainant as one hand his car had met with an accident and on the other hand he was forced to make the payment of the EMI of Rs.8,320/-. Complainant then alleging deficiency in service filed complaint before the District Forum seeking insurance claim and compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs.
4. On the other hand, the case of OP No.1 before the District Forum was that the claim of the Complainant was duly considered and the surveyor assessed the loss on total loss basis at Rs.2,24,300/- minus Rs.35,000/- but there was breach of policy condition as during the processing of claim it was found that the Driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle in question was a transport vehicle as it was having a permit to ply as transport vehicle. The driving licence held by the Driver Davinder was not having any endorsement for driving the transport vehicle. The vehicle was also not having any valid permit for plying as Taxi in the State of Punjab as the permit was valid only for Chandigarh. . No tax was paid for plying in Punjab as required under the permit. Thus, the Complainant committed breach of Policy condition and as such the claim was not payable. It was pleaded that the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 28.8.2008 and complainant was informed about the same, so, there was no deficiency in service on its part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. OP-2, however did not appear before the District Forum despite service and suffered ex parte proceedings.
6. Learned District Forum after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no illegality in the decision of the insurance company to repudiate the claim and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, complainant has come up in this appeal.
7. Today when the case was fixed for hearing arguments none was present on behalf of the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company (OP NO.1) and perused the file. The only point urged in the grounds of appeal is that the claim of the complainant should not have been rejected by the insurance company on the only ground that the driving licence of Devinder Singh was not having an endorsement for driving transport vehicle. But as other terms and conditions of the policy have not been violated by the complainant so his claim was required to be settled on non-standard basis. This point has been repelled by the learned counsel for insurance company who stated that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle and further the vehicle was not having route permit for plying in the State of Punjab and as such the claim was not payable. In support of his contention he produced the ruling of Honble National Commission titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ladu Kishore Sahu-III (2003) CPJ 99 (NC), wherein the driver was not authorized to drive a taxi and he was driving it illegally in contravention of policy and caused the accident. It was held that the Insurance Company was right in repudiating the claim. He cited another case titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sanjeev Kumar IV(2009) CPJ 233 wherein it was held that a person having licence for LMV is not authorized to drive the transport vehicle and as such insurance company is not liable to pay the claim.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the vehicle in question was registered as transport vehicle and was being used as taxi at the time of accident . At the time of accident it was being driven by Sh.Davinder Kumar, driver as mentioned by the complainant in the claim form annexure R-6. The driving licence of driver Davinder Kumar produced by the complainant annexure R-7 was issued for Motor cycle, scooter, car, jeep only. The vehicle in question was not having valid permit for driving the vehicle in Punjab as complainant has not produced any receipt showing payment of tax at the time of entering the barrier of Punjab. In the policy document annexure R-1 it is clearly mentioned under the caption limitations as to use that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-Section-3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988. Further a perusal of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act reveals that a person driving the Transport Vehilce must have an endorsement to that effect on his driving licence and only then he holds the valid driving licence to drive the Transport vehicle. In the present case the driving licence of Davinder Kuamr does not have any such endorsement as is specified in Section-3 of the Motor Vehicles act. Therefore, the licence held by Davinder Kumar, driver while he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not a valid driving licence which was a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
9. In view of the discussion above, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the learned District Forum which is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
Sd/-
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 22nd Feb.,2009 President Sd/-
(Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor )(Retd.) Member *Js