BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.403 of 2019
Date of Instt. 10.09.2019
Date of Decision: 26.02.2024
M/s. Chinar Forge Ltd. through its authorized representative Joginder Paul, C/o C-85/86, Focal Point Extension, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Authorized representative, Scott 5 6 3rd Floor, PUDA Complex, Near Dainik Bhaskar office, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: None for Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein it is alleged that the complainant company is a registered company and is dealing in the business of manufacturing of carpet tiles, mats, rugs, non woven cut pieces, floor covering etc., under the name and style of M/s. Chinar forge Ltd, having its registered office in Jalandhar. The complainant is the owner of four wheeler vehicle i.e. Jeep Compass bearing registration no.PB08CX1616, having chassis no.MCAAJPCH4JFA21698 and engine no.0331833. Said vehicle is insured with OP vide certificate cum policy number NF195674, which was issued on 08.03.2018. Unfortunately, said insured vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 03.12.2018. Complainant had got the vehicle repaired for which under compelling circumstances a sum of Rs.2,31,251/- was spent by the complainant in spite of the fact that said vehicle was duly insured with OP. The complainant had sent various mails to OP qua the insurance claim amount alongwith documents required by OP but till date no claim amount has been paid by OP to the complainant. The complainant has also submitted to OP the driving license of the driver namely Ravinder Singh, who was driving the vehicle at the time of above mentioned accident. The complainant was not aware about the facts that earlier said driver had submitted his fake driving license to dealing officials. Complainant came to know about this when complainant had received his letter about fake driving license of said driver. On enquiry, the complainant learnt that said driver is having valid driving license also and he had submitted by mistake wrong driving license to complainant, which was further submitted to OP. As soon as complainant learnt about the same, genuine driving license was submitted to OP, which was also valid as on the date of accident, but no action till today has been taken by opposite party for clearing the insurance claim. The OP instead of clearing the insurance claim of complainant has sent a repudiation letter dated 16/03/2019 to the complainant on the ground of fake driving license. Said letter was duly replied by complainant and the same was sent to OP by complainantThere is no fault of complainant since the earlier driver had submitted fake driving license and said defect was immediately rectified by complainant as soon as it was discovered. Thereafter even original valid driving license of the driver namely Ravinder Singh was submitted to OP but OP has not cleared the insurance claim of complainant. The complainant has spent total amount of Rs.2,31,215/- for repair on said vehicle which was duly insured with the OP. The complainant had also got issued a legal notice dated 24.06.2019 to OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,31,251/- of the repair and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs and the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that on intimation of loss to the insured vehicle, Surveyor and Loss Assessor through call center on 07-12-2018, Rajnish Kumar Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed by the OP to conduct the Survey and Assess the loss, who submitter his Survey Report dated 19-01-2019 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,16,573/-, with the observation that Earlier driving license No.PB-0820110075642 issued from RTA, Jalandhar was provided and when verified it was found the particulars of Driving License does not exist in the record of RTA, Jalandhar and later insured/complainant provided another Driving License for Driver Ravinder Singh bearing No.PB-3720120013948 issued from some other RTA i.e. Licensing Authority, Phillaur. It is evident that the driver Ravinder Singh was having two Driving Licenses, which is not legal and is against the provisions of Law more particularly Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is further averred that on finding that the driver of the insured vehicle was holding two driving licenses, the OP served letters dated 08-02-2119 and 06-03-2019 upon the insured stating therein that holding of two different driving licenses is contravention of Section-6 of Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions and as such insurance company not liable to pay the loss calling upon the view/opinion of the insured on the subject matter within seven days from the recent of letters, but the complainant did not respond. It is further averred that as the complainant/insured failed to respond to the letters dates 08-02-109 and 06-03-2019, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 16-03-2019 on account of contraventions of Driver Clause, Section 6 of Motor Vehicle Act as well as Condition No.8 of the policy Terms and conditions after due application of mind and the complainant was informed accordingly. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as per law. Repudiating the claim as per law and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy does not amount to any deficiency in service or negligence or unfair trade practice, as such the complaint against the OP is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No. 2018-NF195674-MPV for the period 08-03-2018 to 07-03-2019 in the name of Chinar Forge Ltd. It is also admitted that on intimation of loss, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Rajnish Kumar was deputed by the OP to conduct the Survey and Assess the loss, who submitted his Survey Report dated 19-01- 2019 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,16,573/-, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant since last so many dates and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has proved that he is the owner of four wheeler vehicle i.e. Jeep Compass bearing registration No.PB08CX1616. RC has been proved as Ex.C-3. It is not denied that the complainant purchased the insurance policy from the OP regarding the vehicle. He has proved the policy Ex.C-2. The complainant has alleged that on 03.12.2018, the vehicle met with an accident and he got repaired the vehicle by spending Rs.2,31,251/-. The claim was lodged. This fact has not been denied by the OP that the claim was lodged by the complainant. However, the claim was repudiated on 16.03.2019 vide Ex.C-5. This repudiation has been alleged to be wrong and illegal and deficiency in service has been alleged.
7. Admittedly, the complainant has filed the driving license of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident Ex.C4. This fact is also not denied that the Surveyor was appointed to conduct the survey and assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs.2,16,573/-, but at the same time, he observed that the driving license produced by the complainant is a fake driving license and the driver was having two driving licenses. On the same ground, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide Ex.C-5. The report of the Surveyor has been proved as Ex.O-2. Ex.O-3 is the driving license submitted by the complainant which as per the report of the RTA was not issued by the Office of the RTA, Jalandhar. The OP has produced on record another driving license Ex.O-4, which has been allegedly issued by the RTA Phillaur. Wrong address of the driver, has been mentioned in both the driving licenses Ex.O-3 and Ex.O-4. This has been proved that Ex.O-3 is the fake driving license. The complainant himself has written a letter to the OP Ex.C-6 that they were not knowing about the fact that the person driving the vehicle was having two driving licenses and they were not aware that the driver has submitted fake driving license. It has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, in FA No.947 of 2012, decided on 25.04.2013, case titled as ‘’Kewal Krishan Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited’ that ‘Repudiation of insurance claim (truck) - On the ground that driver holding two driving licenses - Held - In view of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act, a person is not empowered to hold two driving licenses at the same time during the existence of first driving license - Held, In view of per Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the holding of second license by the Driver was illegal - No relief entitled - Appeal dismissed.’
The Hon'ble National Commission has also observed in Revision Petition No.3496 of 2013, case titled as ‘M/s Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.’ that ‘a person cannot have two different driving licenses issued by two different transport authorities and holding of the two driving licenses is in violation of the Section-6 of the Motor Vehicle Act’
In the present case also the second license was obtained in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be said to be holding a valid and effective driving licence. So, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the complainant and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
26.02.2024 Member President
