Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
BHIM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR. - Respondents
R.B.T. No. 1387 of 2008/Appeal No. 1555 of 2002, R.B.T. No. 1784 of 2008/Appeal No. 191 of 2002
Decided on : 11-12-2008
Mrs. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Vandana Malhotra along with Mr. Varun Chawla, Advocates, for the Respondent
The court emphasized the importance of the survey report in assessing the loss and highlighted the interpretation of the law regarding the competence of a person with a heavy motor vehicle license to drive a bus.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Motor Vehicle Act - Section 3, Section 10(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court discussed the validity of the driver's license and the liability of the insurance company to pay the claim. It referenced Section 3 and Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and highlighted the interpretation of the law regarding the competence of a person with a heavy motor vehicle license to drive a bus. The court found deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and modified the order to direct payment of a specific sum based on the assessment of the loss.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants sought compensation for damages to a leased vehicle due to an accident and alleged deficiency in service by the insurance company in filing the claim as 'No Claim'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and modified the order to direct payment of a specific sum based on the assessment of the loss.
Issues: Validity of the driver's license and the liability of the insurance company to pay the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The driver was found to have a valid driving license, and the insurance company was held liable to pay a specific sum based on the assessment of the loss.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the insurance company was partly allowed, modifying the order to direct payment of a specific sum.
ORDER
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member - Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of two appeals bearing Appeal No. 1555 of 2002 (R.B.T. No. 1387 of 2008) filed by Sh. Bhim Singh against National Insurance Company Limited and another Appeal No. 191 of 2002 (R.B.T. No. 1784 of 2008) filed by National Insurance Company Limited and another against Sh. Bhim Singh and another received by transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against common order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 3.5.2002 in complaint case No. 174 of 1994, Sh. Bhim Singh and Another v. National Insurance Company Limited .
2. Briefly the case of the complainants is that complainant No. 2 i.e. Hindustan Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. is the registered owner of LMV (Mini Bus) Make Mahendera bearing registration No. DL-4/1292 and the complainant No. 1 Sh. Bhim Singh had taken the said vehicle on lease vide agreement dated 31.3.1993 from complainant No. 2. As per the averments, the said vehicle was comprehensively insured for the period 29.3.1993 to 28.3.1994. The complainant No. 1 had taken the possession of the vehicle on 31.3.1993. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 20.5.1993 and a case under Sections 279/337, IPC was registered with P.S. Safidor vide FIR No. 188 dated 20.5.1993. As per the complainant, the vehicle suffered extensive damages and information of accident was given to the OP well in time. Surveyor was appointed by the OP who termed the estimate prepared by M/s. Arjun Devi Body Builders, Nangloi, Delhi for Rs. 1,28,200 as excessive. As per the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs. 2,400 for hiring a Mahajan recovery van and Rs. 600 as carriage charges for taking the vehicle from Nangloi to the premises of M/s. Sky Line Automobiles, Dealer of M/s. Mahendera and Mahendera, who further prepared the estimate to the tune of Rs. 1,07,333. This estimate was also not accepted by the Surveyor by simply stating that the repair work requires only Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 20,000 and asked the complainant to take his vehicle to Ghaziabad for preparing any estimate. As per the complainant, the Surveyor appointed by the OP harassed the complainants unnecessarily despite submitting all the requisite documents by the complainants from time-to-time and nothing has been paid till the date of filing of the complaint. It is averred that the complainants got repaired the said vehicle from the concerned mechanics and despite countless visits and representations made to the OP, OP did not pay the insurance claim of the complainant illegally and the claim was lastly filed as "No Claim" by the OP. Alleging this to be as deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company, the complainants filed the complaint seeking directions to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,07,876 on account of carriage, garage, repairs and replacement cost of the said vehicle. The complainants have also sought a sum of Rs. 83,000 towards loss of income for the period from 20.5.1993 to 11.8.1993 besides Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation. Thus, the complainants have claimed a total sum of Rs. 2,90,876.80Ps from the OP.
3. The version of OP is that the driver of the vehicle namely Sh. Dharamvir Singh was not having a valid driving licence to drive the bus in question at the time of accident and thus, the claim of the complainant was filed as "No Claim". OP further pleaded that as per Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no person is in a position to drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. It further pleaded that the driving licence of Sh. Dharamvir Singh could not become effective for transport vehicle as no endorsement was present on his driving licence. As per the OP, the complainants were only entitled to Rs. 20,390 as per survey report prepared by Sh. K. R. Arora. Pleading no deficiency on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The lear
