GEETA BHATIA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against order of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal. Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 3.11.2006 in complaint case No.465 of 2006 : Mrs. Geeta Bhatia V/s. The General Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another.

(2.) Briefly the complainant's case is that she is the owner of Bajaj Motorcycle bearing registration No. GH03h-7976. Her son Sahil Bhatia had gone to Sector 19 market on the motorcycle on 3.5.2006 to purchase some domestic articles. He parked the motorcycle in the parking place and went for making the purchases. On his return, he found the motorcycle lying flat having been hit by some vehicle. The son of the complainant brought the motorcycle to the house and intimation was given to Senior Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter to be referred as Insurance Company) on 4.5.2006 as the vehicle was insured with the OPs for one year from 9.8.2005 upto 8.8.2006. The OPs deputed a Surveyor to inspect the damaged motorcycle and advised the complainant to have the same repaired. The complainant got the motorcycle repaired from authorised dealer M/s. Partap Autos India Pvt. Limited and the bill for the repairs amounted to Rs.4,231.69. The Surveyor had asked the complainant to give photocopy of the driving licence but the same was not produced because on 30.1.2006, the complainant's son had been challaned by the police and they had taken away the driving licence. The Surveyor then asked the complainant if there was any other licence of any other family member for any other type of vehicle saying that there would be difficulty to verify the driving licence of Mr. Sahil from the police or Court and the same be given to him. The complainant gave the licence of her husband. The Surveyor kept a photocopy of the licence of her husband Mr. M. K. Bhatia for L. M. V. which was valid upto 7.6.2010. It has further been stated in the complaint that the photocopy of the expired driver's licence of her husband for scooter/motorcycle has been attached as Annexure A-7 and this expired licence of scooter/motorcycle had been renewed after making the payment of late fee of Rs.15 along with Rs.85 as application fee and Rs.115 as card fee i. e. a total of Rs.215. A photocopy of the renewed licence of Mr. M. K. Bhatia for M. C. W. is attached as Annexure A-9 to the complaint. It has been averred that the Surveyor had told the complainant that it was only a formality and photocopy of licence for L. M. V. of the husband of the complainant would suffice. Despite all this, the OPs - Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 29.5.2006 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. The complainant has, therefore, filed this complaint praying for directions to the OPs to pay Rs.4,231.69 along with compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs.2,000 and litigation charges of Rs.4,000 along with interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) The version of the OPs is that the complaint is totally false, concocted and frivolous. It has been stated that Annexure A-l is fabricated, which shows that the motorcycle was parked in Sector 19 market on 3.5.2006 whereas the intimation of accident received by the OPs mentions that motorcycle met with an accident on 4.5.2006 in Sector 19 market and interestingly both Annexures A-l and R-l are signed by the husband of the complainant. As per the OPs, it is a straight case of accident while the husband of the complainant was riding the motorcycle and not of the motorcycle being hit by some other vehicle in the parking lot. It has further been stated that the husband of the complainant when asked by the Surveyor to give his driving licence (referred to as the 'l' ) showed his driving licence, which authorised him to drive Light Motor Vehicle only and he was not authorised to drive M. C. W. i. e. two-wheeler. The Surveyor obtained the photocopy of the said driving licence and the same is annexed as Annexure A-6 with the complaint. It has been emphasized that the repudiation of the claim was justified. It has also been stated by the OPs that the motorcycle was taken to the workshop of M/s. Partap Autos India Private Limited on her own by the complainant and not on the advice of the Surveyor as stated in the complaint and the Surveyor inspected the motorcycle in the said workshop. In the survey report, it has been clearly mentioned that the driving licence of the husband of the complainant had expired on 28.7.2003 and it had been renewed only on 26.8.2006 whereas the accident had taken place on 4.5.2006 on which date, the husband of the complainant did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and the same violated the policy condition and, hence, the claim of the complainant was not payable.