NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BUNTY GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16.5.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP (now appellant) as under:

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant, got his Mohindra Pick -up, bearing Regd. No. HR -68 -8814, insured with the OP (now appellant), for the period from 5.12.2008 to 4.12.2009, after paying the requisite premium. He appointed one Ajay Chaudhari, as driver of the said vehicle, who was having a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the same. On 6.12.2008, the said vehicle, met with an accident, when it was being driven by aforesaid, Ajay Chaudhari and was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the OP, upon which, the Surveyor was appointed, who told the complainant, to get the vehicle, repaired and submit the bill to the Company, for passing the claim. Accordingly, the complainant, submitted the bills, along with all the requisite documents, for settlement of his claim, to the OP. However, no response was given by the OP, despite repeated requests, made by the complainant. Ultimately, the claim of the complainant, was repudiated, vide letter dated 10.3.2009, on the ground, that the driver of the vehicle, was not having a valid driving licence, for driving the same (vehicle), at the time of accident. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of repudiation of the claim of the complainant, by the OP, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

(3.) IN reply, filed by the OP, the factual matrix of the case, was admitted. It was, however, stated that the vehicle being goods carrier, fell within the category of a transport vehicle and Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, who was driving the same, when it met with an accident, was only holding a driving licence for driving LMV/MCW, and, as such, was not legally authorized, to drive the same. It was further stated that no endorsement on the said driving licence of Ajay Chaudhari, had been made by the Transport Authority, legally authorizing him, to drive such a vehicle. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as well as, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the OP was well within its right, to legally and validly, repudiate the claim of the complainant. It was further stated that since the claim of the complainant, was legally and validly repudiated, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.