State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs 1.Rajender Singh Son Of Shri Lal Chand, ... on 30 August, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.628 of 2011 Date of Institution:09.05.2011 Date of Decision: 30.08.2012 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional office, SCO 212-214, Ist floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager Incharge through its Manager (Legal) Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.135-137, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. Appellant (OP) Versus 1. Rajender Singh son of Shri Lal Chand, Resident of Jatwaran, Sonepat. 2. Ashok Madan, Prop. Madan Insurance, Agent of Reliance General Insurance Opp. Head Post Office, Sonepat. Respondent (Complainants) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Varun Chawla, Advocate for appellant. Shri Satya Pal Khatri, Advocate for respondents. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 09.03.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonepat whereby complaint bearing No.406/2010 filed by complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was accepted and direction given below were issued:-
..the present complaint is allowed and the respondent No.1 insurance company is directed to make the payment of Rs.2,80,096/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim by the complainant with the respondent No.1 till its realization. The respondent No.1 is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for unnecessary harassment and Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) under the head of litigation expenses. The respondent No.1 is further directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of this order.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the truck bearing registration No.HR-69-A-1018 of the respondent No.1 (complainant) was insured with the appellant-opposite party for the period 5.3.2009 to 4.3.2010 for IDV of Rs.14,75,000/-. The truck damaged in an accident which occurred on 23.02.2010. Intimation to the Insurance Company was given upon which the surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage of the truck to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- on cash loss basis. Report dated 04.03.2010 in this regard was submitted by the surveyor. The complainant submitted claim with the opposite party but his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.04.2010 on the ground that the complainant Rajender Singh-who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the driving licence No.1861/DTO/05, of Rajender Singh was valid and authorised to drive HTV, HGV, HPV and LTV only, valid from 23.02.2007 to 20.01.2010 whereas the accident took place on 23.02.2010 and the said D.L. was further renewed on 18.03.2010 upto 17.03.2013.
Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum with the pleat that on the date of accident i.e. on 23.02.2010 the complainant was ill and under the treatment of Dr. Avinash Manktalia C/o Kaniktalia, E.N.T. Hosital, Khanna Colony, Sonepat sincre 20.02.2010 and at the time of accident on 23.02.2010, driver of the complainant Satender son of Mehar Singh resident of Village Murthal District Sonepat was driving the vehicle.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein they justified repudiation of complainants claim on the ground stated in the preceding para of this order and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party No.1 as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite No.1 has come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the claim form the complainant had shown himself as driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The driving license of the complainant bearing No.1861/DTO/05 was valid and authorised to drive HTV, HGV, HPV and LTV only, from 23.02.2007 to 20.01.2010 whereas the accident took place on 23.02.2010 and thereafter the said D.L. was further renewed on 18.03.2010 upto 17.03.2013. Thus, on the date of accident, the complainant was not having a valid and effective driving licence.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that in fact Satender son of Mehar Singh was driving the vehicle and the complainant himself was admitted in the hospital on the said date and therefore the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant. Admittedly, in the claim form Annexure A/7, the name of driver has been mentioned as owner. In other words, the owner of the vehicle Rajender Singh himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident but he was not having a valid and effective driving licence as is evident from the report of surveyor Annexure A/3, report of the licensing authority, Sonipat dated 26.04.2010. The claim form was submitted by the complainant and the same cannot be brushed aside. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any insurable benefits in view of the judgment rendered by Honble Apex Court in case law cited as 2009 CTJ 962, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal (Supreme Court) (CP). District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the instant case in its true perspective, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 30.08.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member