Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member:
1. This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-II], dated 10.6.2004 in Complaint Case No. 319 of 2002, Parvin Kumar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another.
2. Briefly the complainants case is that he had got his Maruti van insured with the O.P. for Rs. 1,60,000/- and the risk period covered was from 26.7.2000 to 25.7.2001. On 7.6.2001 he met with an accident near Phagu in Himachal Pradesh. F.I.R. for the same was lodged with the Police Station Theog (Himachal Pradesh) and O.P. was also informed of the accident. Surveyor deputed by the O.P. assessed the loss at Rs. 1,60,000/- and submitted his report dated 12.6.2001. At the time of the accident the complainant was driving the vehicle himself and was in possession of a valid driving licence. However, the O.P. held that the driving licence was invalid on the plea that since Maruti Van is a nine-seater vehicle the driving licence of the complainant for LMV did not cover driving of this vehicle. The complainant got a clarifiction from the Registration Authority and the Home Department of Chandigarh Administration clarified that the licence for LMV authorized him to drive the Maruti Van but the O.P. did not accept this version and did not pass the claim. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint seeking following relief:
| âA. | Total loss of vehicle as assessed by the Surveyor. | 1,60,000/- |
| B. | Interest on the said amount @ 18% from 8.6.2001 to the date of settlement of case. | 28,800/- |
| C. | Damages cost because of non-use of the vehicle. | 1,00,000/- |
| D. | Mental harassment | 50,000/- |
| Total Claim: | 3,38,000/-â |
4.Learned District Forum-II perused Exhibit A9, namely letter of Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration which clarifies that under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Maruti Van being used for personal/private use would fall under the category of LMV. It also referred to the order of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as 2002-03 PLR 465 (PandH), Hardayan Singh v. Charanji Lal and Others, wherein the Honble High Court has held that:
âOnce a licence can be granted by virtue of provisions contained in Section 10 only with regard to kind of vehicles or type of vehicle, enumerated therein, the mere fact that in the licence of appellant scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep were mentioned, would be of no consequence. It shall be considered to be driving licence for a light motor vehicle and tempo, as per definition of light motor vehicle, as contained in Section 2(21) of the Act of 1988, would be a light motor vehicle. The definition of Light motor vehicle apart, it does not sound to reason even otherwise that a person, who is issued a valid licence to drive a car/jeep, could not drive a tempo. There is no special training that may be required to drive a tempo which may be different in material details for driving a jeep/car.â
5. The learned District Forum, therefore, held that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, by repudiating the claim the O.P. has committed deficiency in service.
6. Coming to the aspect of grant of compensation, the learned District Forum referred to Exhibit R-2 and the affidavit of the Surveyor wherein the market value of the car was assessed as Rs. 1,37,500/-. Value of the salvage was assessed as Rs. 65,000/- and towing charges were taken as Rs. 2,500/-. Thus allowing the deduction of value of salvage i.e., Rs. 65,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- were payable to the complainant. Consequently, the learned District Forum-II directed the O.P. to pay Rs. 75,000/- as insurance claim to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date two months after filing the claim till payment. It also directed the O.P. to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
7. Aggrieved by this order the complainant has filed this appeal. The appeal was taken on board. Record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II and notices were sent to respondents. Mr. N.S. Rana, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant whereas Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate represented the O.Ps.
8. Mr. N.S. Rana, Advocate submitted that his only prayer is for enhancement of compensation. He submitted that the Surveyor had taken the signatures of the complainant on blank forms and that no salvage dealer is ready to purchase the salvage for Rs. 65,000/-. He further submitted that no opportunity was granted to him to cross-examine the Surveyor. He prayed that the compensation allowed by enhanced.
9. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate referred to Annexure R-2 and submitted that the value of the salvage was arrived at after the salvage was shown to many dealers in the business and the affidavit of the Surveyor confirms this mode and valuation. He further submitted that the complainant on his own free will had opted to retain the salvage and the O.P. has paid the balance of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant and thus there is now no ground to allow this appeal.
10. The only controversy involved in this case is the value of the salvage, which as per the O.Ps. is Rs. 65,000/- whereas the complainants grouse is that it is much less. As regards the valuation of the salvage it has been clearly indicates as Rs. 65,000/- in the survey report i.e., Annexure R-2 as well as in the affidavit of the Surveyor. Further the Surveyor has on oath affirmed that Exhibit R-2 was prepared after due discussion with the complainant. There is nothing on record to indicate anything otherwise. The complainant has neither given any valuation of the salvage and nor has he contradicted the averments made in Exhibit R-2 or challenged anything said in the affidavit of the Surveyor. Contention of the complainant that he was not allowed to cross-examine the Surveyor has no merit because as per settled law cross-examination is normally not allowed in cases other than cases of medical negligence and the cases are decided based on evidence produced as affidavits as has been done in this case.
11. In our considered view the appellant/complainant has failed to bring out any cogent evidence that the assessed value of the salvage is on the higher side and that the actual value of the salvage is less than Rs. 65,000/-. We, therefore, find that the complainant has been adequately compensated by the award of the learned District Forum and the impugned order is just, fair and legal and consequently requires no interference. In view of the foregoing the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit and the impugned order is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own cost of the appeal.
Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges.