Haryana

StateCommission

A/326/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANSHUL KUMAR SINGLA - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.BEDI

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       326 of 2015

Date of Institution:      08.04.2015

Date of Decision :        11.04.2016

 

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Jind Branch, through its Regional Office, S.C.O No.337-340, Sector 35B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Anshul Kumar Singla son of Sh. Brij Mohan Singla, resident of House No.48/6, Gandhi Nagar, Jind.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

  

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present:               Shri P.S. Bedi, Advocate for appellant

                             Shri Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The instant appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) calls in question the correctness of the order dated February 20^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.256 of 2013. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“7.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the opposite party has wrongly denied the claim of the complainant and is guilty of deficiency in service.  Resultantly, the complaint is accepted and the opposite party is directed to make the payment of Rs.99,000/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor and Rs.2100/- as litigation charges within one month from the receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party will pay a simple interest @ 9% per annum on the above said amount w.e.f. the date of filing of complaint i.e. 20.12.2013 till full realization of amount...”

 

2.      Anshul Kumar Singla-complainant got his vehicle No.HR15B-0004, insured with Insurance Company for the period August 23^rd, 2012 to August 22^nd, 2013. The vehicle met with an accident on March 07^th, 2013. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the driving licence No.6509/2002 Ranchi of Dharambir Sharma was fake as it was not issued by the District Transport Officer, Ranchi.  The driving licence No.557/JD/06 issued by Licensing Authority, Jind was valid only to drive motorcycle and Heavy Goods Vehicle and not to drive the car.  At the time of accident, Dharambir Sharma son of Ram Niwas was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. 

4.      The issue involved in this case is as to whether at the time of accident Dharambir Sharma was holding valid driving licence or not?

5.       Photocopy of the driving licence (Exhibit C-2) of Dharambir Sharma has been placed on record.  Licensing Authority cum Regional Transport Officer, Jind made endorsement on Annexure ‘A’, that is, the report sought by Surveyor and Loss Assessor that the licence in question was issued by Licensing Authority, Ranchi and was duly renewed by Licensing Authority, Jind.  To refute this licence, Insurance Company has placed on record report of Sunil Kumar, Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company (Exhibit OP3).  In his report, he has stated that Licensing Authority, Ranchi refused to give him the certificate that licence in question was never issued by it.  So, he checked the record and found that no such licence was issued in the name of Dharambir Sharma.

6.      This Commission does not concur with the report of the Investigator because the Licensing Authority could not have refused to issue the certificate as asked or a report could also be taken under Right to Information Act.  Not only that Sunil Kumar, Investigator never appeared before the District Forum to prove the report.  Under these circumstances, the licence of Dharambir Sharma cannot be said to be fake on the basis of report of Investigator.    

7.      In view of the above, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

8.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 11.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK