State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd. vs Akhilesh Sharma on 4 August, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2018/170
Instituted on : 06.04.2018
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Shiv Mohan Bhawan,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant (Opposite Party)
Vs.
Akhilesh Sharma, S/o Shri R.D. Sharma,
House No.16/16, Ravigram, Telibandha,
Raipur (C.G.).
Address : G-1, Civil Court Colony,
Behind Tahsil Office,
Kabirdham - Kawardha (C.G.) .... Respondent (Complainant)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri N.K. Thakur, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.).
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the respondent (complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 04/AUGUST/2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.621/2015. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
a. The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.1,48,871/- (One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.10.2015 till realization, to the complainant.
// 2 // b. The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony, to the complainant. c. The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards advocate fees and cost of litigation, to the complainant.
2 Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that, the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.12- R-1144. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured with the O.P. under Policy No.O.G.-15-2322-1801-00001030, for the period from 24.06.2014 to 23.06.2015. The O.P. fixed the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle at Rs.1,98,494/-. The complainant along with his family members was returning to Kabirdham (Kawardha) from Pachmarhi. On 21.05.2016 at about 2 to 2.30 A.M. (Mid Night), the vehicle of the complainant met with accident due to which the wife, son and daughter of the complainant, sustained grievous injuries. In the accident, the vehicle of the complainant also damaged. The intimation regarding the accident was given to the Police Station, Kabirdham (Kawardha) where Offence No.143/2015 was registered. The complainant and his family members sustained grievous injuries, therefore, intimation regarding the incident was given by the friend of the complainant, to the Insurance Company through email. The O.P. sought documents and information from the complainant, in response to which the complainant filled up the claim form and submitted the same along with relevant documents. The O.P. sent letter dated 26.06.2015 to the complainant seeking explanation. After receiving the above letter, the complainant gave his elaborate explanation to the O.P. and also // 3 // gave information regarding the driving licence and also provided the photocopy of the licence to the O.P., from which it is clear that the complainant was having valid and effective driving licence and he was competent to drive the vehicle. The O.P. sent letter dated 28.07.2015 to the complainant whereby the claim of the complainant, was repudiated. After receiving the above letter the complainant was surprised because he had not violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, even then on baseless ground, the O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant submitted proof to the O.P. from which it is clear that the vehicle of the complainant came in the category of total loss therefore, the complainant is entitled to get I.D.V. of the vehicle Rs.1,98,494/-. Hence the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as prayed in the prayer clause of the complaint.
3. The District Forum held that the written statement was not filed by the appellant (O.P.) within prescribed period, therefore, the written statement filed by the O.P. is not readable in the case but Arijit Chakravorty, Executive Legal filed his affidavit on behalf of the O.P. and deposed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the driver was having Learner's licence and he was not having permanent driving licence and the vehicle in question was being used in violation of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. The complainant himself gave in writing that he was having Learner's Licence. The complainant also violation Section 6 of the Act. The complainant also mentioned that he was having another licence. The // 4 // complainant himself is driver of the vehicle in question. The complainant submitted claim on the basis of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and due to violation of the terms and condition in respect of the licence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. On the basis of documents submitted before the O.P., the claim of the complainant was settled on merits. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A-1 is Certificate of Registration, Annexure A-2 is Insurance Policy, Annexure A-3 is photocopy of Learning Licence, Annexure A-4 is photocopy of licence, Annexure A-5 is First Information Report, Annexure A-6 is email dated 02.06.2015 sent by the complainant to the O.P. Annexure A-7 I letter dated 02.06.2015 along with photographs sent by the complainant to the O.P, Annexure A-8 is letter dated 03.06.2015 sent by the complainant to the O.P., Annexure A-9 is letter dated 26.06.2015 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure A-10 is reply dated 06.07.2015 sent by the complainant to the O.P. in response to its letter dated 26.06.2015, Annexure A-11 is acknowledgement, Annexure A-12 is repudiation letter dated 28.07.2015 sent by the O.P. to the complainant.
5. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the complainant and O.P., has allowed the complaint of the complainant.
6. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the learned District Forum did not consider the written statement // 5 // filed by the O.P. on the ground that the written statement was not filed by the O.P. within prescribed period, therefore, the O.P. could not properly defend its case before the District Forum. He further argued that at the time of the accident, the respondent (complainant) was not having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant in violation of Rule 3 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the complainant, his permanent driving licence was expired and he applied for renewal of the driving licence. The R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha) has firstly issued learner's licence. It appears that at the time of the incident, the complainant was not having valid and effective driving licence. If the complainant was having learner's licence, then it is essential for him that when he drives the vehicle, the instructor or the person, who is sitting in the vehicle should have valid an effective driving licence. But in the instant case, the complainant has utterly failed to prove that the complainant was having valid driving licence or the injured person sitting in the vehicle in question was possessing valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned District Forum has erroneously allowed the complaint and awarded compensation to the complainant. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, may be set aside.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has argued that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.12-R-1144, which was insured with the appellant // 6 // (O.P.) for the period from 24.06.2014 to 23.06.2015. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.1,98,494/-. The complainant was working in the Judicial Department and he was transferred to Kabirdham (Kawardha) in the year 2014 in post of Clerk of Court (Office Superintendent) from Raipur. At that time the complainant was having a valid and effective driving licence, which was issued from R.T.O. Raipur. The complainant went to R.T.O. Raipur for renewal of his driving licence, where the concerning Clerk orally informed him that as he has been transferred to Kabirdham (Kawardha) from Raipur (C.G.), therefore, his licence will be renewed only from R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha), then the complainant went to R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha), where the complainant was informed by the concerning Clerk that initially his driving licence was renewed by the R.T.O. Raipur and the record is not available, therefore, it is essential for the complainant that firstly he has to obtain learner's licence, thereafter the permanent licence would be issued to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has obtained the learner's licence. At the time of the incident, the complainant was having valid and effective driving licence. The O.P., has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) may be dismissed.
8. We have heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order.
// 7 //
9. The respondent (complainant) has pleaded that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.12-R-1144, which was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 24.06.2014 to 23.06.2015. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question is Rs.1,98,494/-. The complainant has filed photocopies of Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.12-R-1144 and insurance policy. Looking to the above documents, it appears the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.12-R-1144.
10. According to the respondent (complainant) the vehicle in question met with an accident on 21.05.2016 at about 2 to 2.30 A.M. (Mid Night). The complainant has filed copy of First Information Report. Looking to the above document, it appears that the First Information Report was lodged immediately in Police Outpost, Kawardha where Offence No.143/2015 for offence under Section 279, 337 was registered against Yash Sharma. It appears that the vehicle in question met with an accident and was damaged. The complainant sent intimation to the O.P. regarding the incident on 02.06.2015. Looking to the documents, it appears that the O.P. has not appointed Surveyor to assess the loss. It is the duty of the insurer that after receiving the intimation regarding the incident, to appoint Surveyor for assessment of loss, but in the instant case, the O.P. has not filed copy of the Surveyor's Report.
11. The appellant (O.P.) repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant) vide letter dated 28.07.2015 on the ground that "At the time of scrutiny of the documents submitted by your good self, the driving license of // 8 // Akhilesh Sharma, S/o R.D. Sharma, D/L No.CG09/0001592/2015 it is established that at the material time of accident the driver was not holding a valid license (Learning License) to drive particular class of vehicle. As per Motor Vehicle Act "(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds on effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a Motor cab or motorcycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75, unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts, hence your claim stands repudiated and closed."
12. It appears that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the appellant (O.P.) for want of the valid & effective driving license at the time of incident.
13. According to the respondent (complainant), he was working in the Judicial Department and he was transferred to Kabirdham (Kawardha) in the year 2014 in post of Clerk of Court (Office Superintendent) from Raipur. At that time the complainant was having a valid and effective driving license, which was issued from R.T.O. Raipur. The complainant went to R.T.O. Raipur for renewal of his driving license, where the concerning Clerk orally informed him that as he has been transferred to Kabirdham (Kawardha) from Raipur (C.G.), therefore, his license will be renewed only from R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha), then the complainant went to R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha), where the complainant was informed by the concerning Clerk that initially his // 9 // driving license, was renewed by the R.T.O. Raipur and the record is not available, therefore, it is essential for the complainant that firstly he has to obtain learner's license, thereafter the permanent license would be issued to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has obtained the learner's license. At the time of the incident, the complainant was having valid and effective driving license.
14. The complainant has filed copy of First Information Report (Annexure A-5). From perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that at the time of the incident, the vehicle in question was being driven by Akhilesh Sharma, complainant. The complainant has filed copy of his driving license. Initially the driving license was issued to the complainant on 26.03.1985 from R.T.O. Raipur which was renewed on 23.08.2006, which was valid till 27.02.2015. It appears that initially Akhilesh Sharma, complainant was having licence for driving Motor Cycle With Gear and Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). The complainant has also filed copy of Learner's Licence issued by Transport Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Kabirdham (Kawardha). The Learner's Licence No. is CG09/0001592/2015. Looking to the above document, it appears that initially the complainant was having valid driving licence and after expiry of the licence, the complainant went to the R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha) for renewal of the driving licence, but his licence was not renewed by R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha) for want of documents. The R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha) issued Learner's Licence. Due to transfer of the complainant, the R.T.O. Raipur also did not renew the driving licence of the complainant. The R.T.O. Kabirdham (Kawardha) issued learner's licence to the // 10 // complainant, therefore, it can safely be held that the complainant has not committed any fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
15. The respondent (complainant) has demanded Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question. The learned District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.1,48,871/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy One) on non-standard basis, to the complainant. The appellant (O.P.) has not filed any document regarding the assessment of loss / damages suffered by the complainant, therefore, the learned District Forum, has rightly awarded the amount of Rs.1,48,871/- to the complainant.
16. So far as award of interest on Rs.1,48,871/-, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation are concerned, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and for want of the valid and effective permanent driving licence of the complainant on the date of incident, it is not proper to award interest, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation to the complainant. The complainant is only entitled to get Rs.1,48,871/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy One) from the O.P.
17. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.2017, passed by the District Forum, is modified and it is directed that :-
(i) The appellant (O.P.) will pay a sum of 1,48,871/- (Rs. One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy One) to the // 11 // respondent (complainant) within 30 days from the date of this order.
(ii) The award of the District Forum regarding interest, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation, are set aside.
(iii) The parties shall bear their own cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel) President Member Member Member 04/08/2018 04/08/2018 04 /08/2018 04 /08/2018