STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 22.02.2019
Date of final hearing: 29.08.2024
Date of pronouncement: 07.11.2024
First Appeal No.197 of 2019
Pranav Aggarwal S/o Sh. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, R/o H. No.193-194, Ajit Nagar, Ambala Cantt.-133001; through Special Power of Attorney holder Sh. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal; Phone 0171-2663149, 9416281343, 9355925888; Email: prvnaggarwal@rediffmail.com, pka201147@rediffmail.com.
....Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its office at: Ambala: I Floor, 167/18C, Sadar Bazar Road, Hazara Singh Building, Ambala Cantt. Phones: 1800-209-5858; 020-66026666; Email: customercare@bajajallianz.co.in OR Yamuna Nagar: 116, Model Colony, Opposite Nirankari Bhawan, Yamuna Nagar.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, father of the appellant Pranav Aggarwal.
Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate along with Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this Appeal No.197 of 2019 has been invited by unsuccessful complainant, to the legality of order dated 05.02.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.117 of 2017, vide which his complaint has been dismissed.
2. Complainant has alleged that: he is registered owner of Maruti Wagon-R No.PB10-EA/0359; it was insured with OP vide insurance policy No.OG-14-1203-1801-00008164-Annexure C-5/R-9 valid from 19.01.2014 to midnight of 18.01.2015. On 24.04.2014 at about 05:00 PM, his car struck against Rickshaw Puller (Montu S/o Fakir Chand), who sustained injury; accident was reported to police vide Rapat No.15, dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure C-10) recorded in P.P. Buria Gate-Jagadhri. In this accident; intensive damages were caused to subject car and accident was intimated to OP/insurer on 26.04.2014 who appointed surveyor for spot inspection. Surveyor inspected subject car at ‘Ekansh Wheels’ Village: Tepra, Distt.-Ambala and assessed net loss at Rs.33,375/- vide report dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure R-3). Complainant lodged his claim of Rs.3,94,494/- as expenditure incurred on car; submitted bills of repair and amount of Rs.45,000/- allegedly paid to injured Montu. Claim was repudiated by OP/insurer vide letter dated 30.06.2014 on the ground that his (driver’s) driving license (Ex. R-4) was not valid on day of accident, therefore, insurer/OP was not liable to make payment of complainant’s claim. Feeling aggrieved, complainant filed complaint before learned District Consumer Commission, thereby raising claim of Rs.3,94,494/- against OP/insurer plus Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP-insurer in its defense, in preliminary objections thereof has pleaded regarding non-maintainability of complaint; there being no cause of action; Forum having no territorial jurisdiction to try/entertain it. It is pleaded that OP received claim intimation that vehicle No. PB-10EA-0359 has/had met with an accident on 24.04.2014. Complainant was asked to submit documents i.e. DL, RC, insurance and copy of FIR. Surveyor of insurer conducted survey and assessed net loss at Rs.33,375/- vide his report dated 20.05.2014 subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. On receipt of report of surveyor and report of Licensing Authority-Tohana with regard to driving license of Pranav Aggarwal bearing No. 67755 issued by said authority; claim in question was processed and it was found that licensing authority has/had reported that license in question was not valid at the time of accident. Letter dated 11.06.2014 was written to insured in this regard and reminder dated 23.06.2014 was given to explain as to why claim should not be repudiated. Complainant did not respond and finding no alternative insurer vide its letter dated 30.06.2014 repudiated the claim on ground that Driving License of complainant was not valid on the day of accident. It is pleaded that amount paid to injured Montu has nothing to do with this complaint. It is further pleaded that insured has violated the policy terms and conditions and thus not entitled to compensation.
4. On analyzing evidence brought on record by both parties; learned District Consumer Commission-Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide order dated 05.02.2019 has dismissed the complaint, thereby giving rise to filing of this appeal by complainant/appellant.
Father of appellant (Sh. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal), as well as, learned counsel for respondent/insurer have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
6. On behalf of complainant/appellant; it is contended that: learned District Consumer Commission has committed gross illegality while non-suiting the complainant. It is urged that claim filed by the appellant pertained to expenses (amounting Rs.3,94,494/-) regarding loss caused to his vehicle No. PB-10EA-0359 (Wagon-R) which had struck against Rickshaw pullar, when complainant was on wheels in that car. It is urged that on the day of accident the vehicle was carrying shield of insurance which had currency from 19.01.2014 to 18.01.2015. It is further urged that reasoning given by learned District Consumer Commission to dismiss complaint is legally unjust. Complainant, through his father has impressed upon Government of Haryana website your license is valid for 20 years from the date of issue or till you turn 50 years of age, whichever happens earlier.” It is contended that if this instruction of Haryana Government is applied to driving license of complainant, then it would mean that complainant’s DL which was issued on 21.07.1999 will not become invalid on the day of accident and license’s validity date (25.12.2004) so mentioned in document Annexure C-14 is incorrect recital, particularly when year-2004 has been overwritten by making a cutting over year-2029. Complainant, through his father has thus urged that date (25.12.2029) so mentioned in driving license (Ex.R-4) was correctly stated being its tenure of validity, because on that day, complainant would be completing 50 years of his age as his date of birth is 26.12.1979.
7. Refuting above contentions; learned counsel for respondent/insurer has contended that order dated 05.02.2019 is legal as the pivotal issue has been correctly analyzed by learned District Consumer Commission and it warrant no interference. It is contended that by no stretch of imagination; driving license would carry such a long validity (20 years or till attaining the age of 50 years by license holder, whichever comes earlier) as it has been so urged on behalf of complainant/appellant.
8. The nucleus of controversy involved in this appeal is regarding validity of driving license (Ex.R-4) of complainant/appellant. This license issued by licensing Authority-Tohana unambiguously recites that it was issued on 21.07.1999 and it has validity up to 25.12.2029. It also recites date of birth of license holder (appellant/complainant) as 26.12.1979. Stance of insurer in its defense is that this license was not valid on the date of accident. Curiously enough, complainant’s father had submitted application on 29.09.2014 under RTI Act about his son’s driving license No. 67755 valid till 25.12.2029 and issued on 21.07.1999. This is so apparent from complainant’s father’s email (Ex.C-13) so addressed to Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad. In response thereto, vide letter Ex.C-14 complainant’s father has/had been conveyed that driving license No. 67755 of his son-Pranav Aggarwal has validity till 25.12.2004. Identical facts are apparent from document Annexure C-15. No doubt in this document Annexure C-15, it is visible that cutting has been made over year 2029, by making it as year 2004, yet, that mystery (regarding cutting over year 2029) was required to be explained and proved by complainant alone by leading evidence admissible as per law. While observing this, this Commission gains strength from ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbax Singh 2006 (2) PLR 775. Therein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “there is an essential distinction between the concept ‘burden of proof and onus of proof’. Burden of proof lay upon a person, who has to prove the fact and which never shifts, whereas onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. The elementary rule of Section 101 of Evidence Act is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden is always on plaintiff. If the plaintiff discharges that onus and makes out a case, which entitles him to relief, then onus shifts upon the defendant to prove those circumstances, which would dis-entitle the plaintiff to the same.” While applying above ratio of law, to facts of this case, it would decipher that in October-2014 vide document Annexure C-16, in response to complainant’s father’s application/appeal under RTI Act; he (complainant’s father) was conveyed by licensing authority-Tohana that his son’s driving license has validity till 25.12.2004, which is a fact visible from glancing at document Annexure C-15 too. If complainant had any grievance regarding the validity date of his driving license, then he should have sought his legal remedy against licensing authority which is an instrumentality of the State Government for Redressal of his grievance. The Consumer Commissions have no jurisdiction to answer this poser with regard to mystery regarding cutting of year pertaining to driving license of complainant from year 2029 to year 2004. Appropriate answer to reliance placed by complainant through his father upon Government of Haryana’s website your license is valid for 20 years from the date of issue or till you turn 50 years of age, whichever happens earlier” was also within the domain and ambit of State Government to provide. In the present case, State Government is not a party. Insurer/respondent is not the author of documents Annexure C-14 and driving license of complainant was also not issued by insurer/respondent. Insurer/respondent has justly pleaded a case that license of complainant was not valid on the date of accident and it has successfully established that fact on the basis of documents relied upon complainant himself.
9. Consequently, learned District Consumer Commission has not committed any fallacy that driving license was valid upto 25.12.2004 and accident in question had resulted on 24.04.2014. On the day of accident (24.04.2014), complainant was driving Wagon-R without possessing valid and effective driving license. Complainant/appellant has been rightly non-suited. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Accordingly, order dated 05.02.2019 is maintained, affirmed and upheld. Present appeal, being devoid on merits, is hereby dismissed.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 07th November, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
