State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Deep Chand on 17 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA. First Appeal No. 768 of 2006 Date of Institution: 20.3.2006 Date of Decision: 17.08.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Netaji Subhash Marg, Ambala Cantt. Through its Branch Manager (through the O.I.C. Ltd, Regional Office, Ambala Cantt its the Regional Manager). Appellant / OP. VERSUS Deep Chand aged 38 years son of Sh. Mam Raj resident of Ward No.18, Mohalla Gohanpur, Sadhaura, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. Respondent/ complainant. BEFORE:- Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member.
Sh. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Present:- Mr. Varun Chawla, Advocate for the appellant-Ops.
Mr. Sanjay Dahiya, Advocate for the respondent-complainant.
O R D E R:
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN, PRESIDENT:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 30.1.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar in complaint No.528 of 2004 which relates to insurable claim in respect of the insured vehicle belonging to the respondent-complainant.
The brief facts of the present case are that canter bearing registration No.HR-58-4094 owned by the respondent-complainant was insured with the appellant-opposite party for the period w.e.f. 1.10.2003 to 30.9.2004. Unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident on 10.12.2003. Information was given to the insurance company, upon which surveyor was appointed who investigated the matter. The complainant got repaired his vehicle from Modern Automobiles by spending an amount of Rs.2,35,544/-. Accordingly, the complainant submitted his claim in respect of the above said amount, but the same was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that Surender @ Salinder son of Sh. Mam Raj, who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license, and he was having a license to drive only for scooter and was not authorized to drive LTV/HTV.
Challenging the action of the opposite party the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum with the averments that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the opposite party had erroneously repudiated his claim.
Upon notice the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint on the ground stated above and denying any kind of deficiency of service, prayed that complaint be dismissed.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint by granting following relief:-
Resultantly, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.2,35,544/- incurred by the complainant for repair of the canter NoHR-58/4094 along with interest @ 12% p.a. after three months of accident till realization and pay Rs20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony harassment and loss of income due to non functioning of vehicle and pay Rs5000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within one month..
Hence, this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party that initially the driving license to Surender @ Salinder son of Sh. Mam Raj was issued from the office of District Transport Office, Patiala (Punjab) and the same was authorized to drive scooter only and he was never authorized to drive LTV/HTV. Controverting the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that the driving license of Surender @ Salinder son of Sh. Mam Raj, was got renewed from the Licensing Authority, Yamuna Nagar and as per this driving license, Surender @ Salinder son of Sh. Mam Raj, was authorized to drive LTV/HTV.
We have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels as well as gone through the case file. From the perusal of the record it reveals that Annexure R-6 is the surveyor report, which proved that Driving License No.3372/R/97, which was issued by the office of Licensing authority, Yamuna Nagar in the name of Salinder son of Sh. Mam Raj, was a valid and effective driving license to drive the LTV/HTV. It cannot be denied that any driving license holder can be authorized to drive various kinds of vehicle by the Licensing Authority after passing a driving test of the specific vehicle. It is not disputed that the surveyor of the Company after inspecting the vehicle has assessed the loss of the damaged vehicle to the extent of Rs.1,96,052/-. It is well settled principle of law that surveyors report is an important document and the same cannot be brushed aside without any cogent and convincing proof contrary to it and the same lacks in this case. Thus, the opposite party was erroneous in repudiating the claim of the complainant against the factual position on record.
AS a sequel to our aforesaid discussion this appeal is partly accepted and by modifying the impugned order it is ordered that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,96,052/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization.
The impugned order is modified on the terms indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.
The statutory amount of Rs.
25,000/-deposited at the time of filing of the present 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.
17th August 2010. Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member.
Kr Diwan Singh Chauhan Member.