State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Shri Krishan Chand Verma on 10 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.23/2011
Date
of Decision: 10.05.2012
National Insurance Company
Limited, Divisional Office, Himland Hotel, Circular Road, Shimla, through its
Divisional Manager.
.. Appellant
Versus
Shri Krishan Chand Verma son of
Shri Bali Ram Verma, Resident of Verma House, Upper Cemetry Road, Sanjauli,
Shimla-171 006.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For
the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved, by order dated 27.11.2010 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby, a complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, filed against it, by respondent Krishan Chand Verma, has been allowed and it has been ordered to pay `45,834/-, as insurance claim, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint and also to pay litigation expenses, quantified at `2000/-.
2. Respondent Krishan Chand was the owner of a Maruti Alto Car. He got the same insured with the appellant for the period from 25.09.2006 to 24.09.2007, in the sum of `2,57,987/-. On 02.10.2006, or say within a few days of insurance, car met with an accident and was damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the appellant. A Surveyor deputed by the appellant, assessed the loss at `28,019/-.
Appellant did not pay any amount of money to the respondent and repudiated the claim, on the ground that there were contradictions in the police report, claim form and a letter written by the insured, about the name and particular of the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time, when accident took place. Complainant then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking issuance of a direction to the appellant to pay insurance claim.
3. Appellant contested the complaint and stated, in the reply, that in the police report, which was lodged soon-after the occurrence, it was stated that the vehicle was being driven by Vikas Verma, who is the son of respondent, in the claim form, it was stated that the vehicle was being driven by the insured himself, i.e. respondent and later-on in a communication addressed by the insured-respondent to the appellant, it was stated that vehicle was being driven by one Dheeraj Chauhan alias Manu.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order allowed the complaint, holding that the vehicle was being driven by Vikas Verma, as reported to the police, immediately after occurrence and that Vikas Verma possessed a valid learners driving licence and ordered the appellant to pay a sum of `45,834/-, which the respondent pleaded to have spent on the repair of vehicle, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint and also to pay `2000/- as litigation expenses.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is true that respondent-complainant made contradictory averments, with regard to the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, but that by itself could not have been a ground for repudiation of claim. Claim could have been repudiated only if the appellant, after ascertaining as to who was actually driving the vehicle, found that person driving the vehicle, was not holding a licence to drive it.
7. Earliest version, which was given to the police after the accident, is supposed to be authentic, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because the same was given by Vikas Verma, the son of the respondent-claimant, who was admittedly, on board the vehicle, at the time of occurrence. Now, as per police version, the vehicle was being driven by Vikas Verma. He possessed a valid learners licence. The police report lodged by Vikas Verma further shows that Dheeraj Chauhan alias Manu was also on board the vehicle, at the time, when accident took place.
Dheeraj Chauhan alias Manu had regular driving licence, which was valid and effective. Its copy is available on the record of Learned District Forum, at page-64. Since a person having a regular licence was also present in the car, when accident took place, it cannot be said that Vikas Verma, who was having learners licence, could not have driven the vehicle.
8. A learners licence holder is a duly licensed person to drive the vehicle of the class, in respect of which he holds such licence, provided someone holding a regular licence is there, to control the vehicle in case of emergency.
In this case, Dheeraj Chauhan alias Manu was there. Consequently, no fault can be found with the finding of Learned District Forum that the appellant is liable to indemnify the respondent-complainant.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that though bill submitted by the respondent-complainant shows that he had got the vehicle repaired from an authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog i.e. M/s Goyal Motors and paid a sum of `45,834/-, yet the entire amount charged by said Goyal Motors, could not have been awarded by way of insurance money. According to learned counsel, replaced parts included some non-metallic parts for the indemnification of which, an amount exceeding 50% could not have been awarded.
We have seen the Surveyors report, per which the value of damaged non-metallic parts is `8637/-. That means on account of value of non-metallic parts of 50% cut was required to be made, while arriving at the amount payable on account of insurance money. Thus, out of the amount of `45,834/- paid by the respondent-complainant to M/s Goyal Motors, a sum of `4319/- is required to be reduced and the remaining amount is payable to the respondent-complainant, by way of insurance claim.
10. Consequently, appeal is partly accepted and the amount of insurance is reduced from `45,834/- to `41,515/-. All other directions in the order of Learned District Forum remain unchanged.
11. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 10, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?