STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 1405 of 2017 Date of Institution: 21.11.2017 Date of Decision: 05.01.2022 Rajesh Kumar son of Sharvan Kumar, resident of Village Deodhai, Tehsil and District Rewari.

Appellant-Complainant Versus

1. Cholamandalam Insurance Company Limited, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar No.81,Karol Bagh, New Delhi through its Manager.

2. Shri Satish Kumar Surveyor, Cholamandalam MS Insurance company Ltd. Pusa Road, Metro Pillar No.81, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

Ms. Manjula, Member.

Present: Shri Gaurav Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri R.D. Yadav, counsel for the appellant.

Shri Punit Jain, counsel for the respondents

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN, J.

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons specified in the miscellaneous application.

2. Complainant-Rajesh Kumar is in appeal against the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari whereby the complaint filed by him was partly allowed by directing the opposite party No.1-Cholamandalam Insurance Company Limited to pay the claim of the complainant on non standard basis i.e. 75% of Rs.95,353/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount would fetch interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till payment.

3. According to the complainant, his vehicle tanker bearing registration No.HR47B-1263 duly insured with the opposite parties met with an accident. He got repaired the vehicle by incurring a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. He took steps for getting the insured amount but the amount was not given to him despite repeated requests. Hence he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that the opposite parties be ordered to pay the amount of bill of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till realization alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental torture and agony caused to him due to illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties.

4. Upon notice, the opposite parties contested the complaint by alleging that Naresh Kumar, driver of the aforementioned vehicle at the time of accident was not holding effecting driving licence on 27.09.2014. The surveyor had assessed the amount as Rs.95,353/-, which could not be given to him and thus the claim was rightly rejected. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the District Consumer Forum observed that the claim had been rejected on the ground that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The driver was driving the heavy vehicle i.e. tanker but he was having licence Ex.OP-3 of LMV only. The complainant was provided enough opportunities to lead his evidence but no evidence was led. As the driver was having driving licence to drive LMV, TRV rigid chassis only with the said driving licence, the driver could not have driven the tanker, which was a heavy vehicle. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant could not be rejected in toto whereas it ought to have been settled on non standard basis. The complaint was accordingly partly allowed directing opposite party No.1 to pay the claim to the complainant on non standard basis.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order as well as the record, which stands requisitioned, the State Commission is of the considered view that the claim of the complainant on non standard basis could not be interfered with as the driver was having licence to drive LMV, TRV, rigid chassis only. Moreover, the opposite parties did not challenge the impugned order to the extent of granting claim of the complainant on non standard basis.

7. At the same time, it may be noticed that the District Consumer Forum did not award any amount to the complainant on account of suffering, mental torture and agony besides litigatio