State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hem Singh vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 29 September, 2011
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. ---- FIRST APPEAL NO.113/2008. ORDERS RESERVED ON 16.9.2011 AT MANDI. DATE OF DECISION : 29.9.2011. In the matter of: Hem Singh son of Sh. Jagdev, resident of Village & P.O. Pairi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Appellant/complainant. Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Palace Colony, Mandi, H.P. through its Divisional Manager. Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
For the Appellant: Mr. A.C. Verma, Advocate, alongwith Mr. Kulbhushan Jamwal, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Anil Tomer, Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R:
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
1.
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Mandi, passed in Complaint Case No. 81/2008, dated 5.4.2008, whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed and it was held that since the complainant has contravened the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, as such he is not entitled to any claim in the present case and claim was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Comopany. Parties are being referred to hereinafter as per their status in the complaint.
2. Facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Tractor No.HP-33 A-8930 and he had obtained comprehensive insurance policy in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the said vehicle which was in operation with effect from 4.1.2007 to 3.1.2008.
This vehicle met with accident on 6.7.2007 and considerable damage was caused to the vehicle of the complainant and thereafter matter was reported to the Insurance Company and the Company had directed the complainant to go for repair of his vehicle and thereafter complainant had got his vehicle repaired for an amount of Rs.31,458/-. But this claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, deficiency of service has been alleged on the part of the opposite party in the present case and complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the opposite party.
3. This complaint was resisted and contested by the opposite party who had taken the plea that the complainant had contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy since the complainant who was on the wheel of the vehicle at the relevant time was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the claim was rightly repudiated.
4. Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in nutshell in the present case is that the complainant in support of his case has filed his own affidavit and had placed reliance upon a number of documents, which are, Certificate cum Payment Schedule, copy of letter dated 8.3.2007 addressed to the complainant by the Divisional Manager of the Company, certificate of registration of the vehicle and driving licence.
5. Insurance company in support of its case has filed affidavit of Shri Balbir Singh, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company and has placed reliance upon number of documents, viz. certificate cum policy schedule, copy of letter dated 8.3.2007 addressed to the complainant by the Divisional Manager of the Company, copy of the final survey report of Surveyor Shri M.L. Gupta, copy of the certificate of registration of the vehicle and copy of fitness certificate of the vehicle.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the record of the case minutely. In the present case, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that since the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) and the weight of the vehicle as per Registration Certificate does not exceed 7500 kgs. And as such the Forum below has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant in the present case since the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence for driving the L.M.V.
7. Mr. Anil Tomer, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that since the vehicle in question as per Registration Certificate has been registered as a Tractor Trolley by the Registering & Licensing Authority, as such this vehicle being a transport vehicle and being used for carriage of goods and the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time was only having a driving licence for L.M.V (Non Transport) and as such there was clear breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and this is a fundamental breach of the policy conditions and as such the claim was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company.
8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we are of the considered view that the order of the Forum below is legally justified and there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum since in the present case as per Registration Certificate the vehicle in question has been registered as a tractor trolley which is admittedly a transport vehicle for transporting the goods in the trolley and Shri Hem Singh who was on the wheel at the time of accident is not having licence to drive L.M.V. transport vehicle as from his licence, which is at page 40 of the file, it is evident that he had been licensed only for L.M.V. Non Transport vehicle. As such, there was a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and repudiation of the claim was legally justified and Forum below has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Versus Kusum Rai and others, TAC 2006 Volume II Page 1, decided on 24.3.2006 and the decision of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of New India Assurance Co. Versus Suraj Prakash and others, 2000 (2) SLC 262 as well as subsequent decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Versus Smt. Savitri and others, 2006 (I) SLC 31.
9. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in the present appeal and as such it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Shimla, Announced on September 29, 2011.
( Chander Shekhar Sharma) Presiding Member ( Prem Chauhan ) Member