BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.284 of 2019
Date of Instt. 23.07.2019
Date of Decision: 20.03.2023
Sh. Inderpal Singh son of S. Darshan Singh, resident of House No.394, Sodal Road, Preet Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Go Digit General Insurance Limited, Atlantis, 95, 4th B Cross Road, Karamangala Industrial Layout, 5th Block, Bengaluru, 560095 through its Manager.
2. Go Digit General Insurance Limited, Jalandhar Business Centre, Shop No.3, New Rajinder Nagar, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Anuj Mehta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased one vehicle i.e. Honda Activa having Engine no.136418 and Chassis no.136375 from M/s G. S. Honda, Football Chowk, Jalandhar vide bill/invoice no. PB02000218V07890 on dated 04/02/2019 for a total sum of Rs.56,017/-. At that time purchase of the said vehicle, the representative of the opposite parties got insured the aforesaid vehicle and assured the complainant that they will provide him best service and will reimburse its claim immediately in case of any loss. As per the assurance of the representatives of the OPs, the complainant got fully insured the said vehicle from them vide policy no.D003663026 valid from 04.02.2019 to 03.02.2020 for on damage cover and from 04.02.2019 to 03.02.2024 for third party liability cover. As per terms and conditions of above said policy, the OPs assured and undertake that in case of any loss, then they will reimburse all the loss and expenses to the complainant. On 24.03.2019, at about 3.30 PM, the complainant alongwith his daughter Jasleen Kaur had gone to Preet Nagar Market, Jalandhar from their home on their said Activa Scooter bearing Registration No. PB08-EF-9584 to purchase some household articles and when they reached near Preet Nagar Gurudwara Sahib, Jasleen Kaur had seen her friend namely Satwant Kaur who was coming from Doaba Chowk side on foot and the complainant Inderpal Singh stopped his Activa on the left side of the road and Jasleen Kaur start talking with her friend Satwant Kaur and the complainant Inderpal Singh had gone to nearby shop to purchase the articles. In the meanwhile, the complainant Inderpal Singh had seen that one Tractor and trolley bearing Registration no.PB08-CX-4442 hit Jasleen Kaur and she came under the front tyre of the tractor and suffered grievous injuries. Satwant Kaur also sustained injuries in the accident. The said Activa which is duly insured with the opposite parties was also got completely damaged in the accident. The driver of the tractor trolley tried to ran away from the spot alongwith tractor and trolley but the public caught him at the Doaba Chowk and thereafter driver disclosed his name as Happy s/o Mulkhraj. The complainant Inderpal Singh with the help of persons gathered at the spot arranged a vehicle and took the deceased Jasleen Kaur to Capitol Hospital, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar, but she was declared brought dead by the doctors of the said hospital. The other injured Satwant Kaur also got admitted to Kamal Hospital near Doaba Chowk by her family members. Thereafter, FIR bearing no. 42 dated 24.03.2019 was registered at PS Division no. 8 against the driver of the tractor trolley on the statement of the complainant Inderpal Singh. Thereafter, police took the possession of both the accidental vehicle from the place of occurrence and brought the same to the police station. The vehicle Activa bearing registration No.PB08-EF-9584 having Engine no. 136418 and Chassis no.136375 was completely damaged in the said accident. Due to the sudden death of his daughter, the complainant immediately did not inform to office of opposite parties regarding the condition of the vehicle and after few days after the last rites of his daughter, he applied for the claim before office of OPs after completing whole formalities regarding the loss of the scooter and representative of opposite parties told him to brought the accident vehicle to the authorized dealer i.e. G.S. Honda, Jalandhar where they gave total estimate Rs.51,280/- regarding repair of said vehicle. Thereafter the OPs started linger on the matter and starting harassing the complainant by sending him fake queries regarding the accident and the complainant gave sufficient reasons to the said queries. The OPs just in order to make opposite parties false ground to repudiated the claim of the complainant starting falsely alleging without any authentic proof that daughter of the complainant i.e. deceased Jasleen Kaur was driving the said vehicle and the same was not parked and further directed the complainant to submit her driving license. Further, the complainant gave a written explanation vide its reply to opposite parties message dated 30.04.2019 whereby he has categorically denied the fact that his daughter was not driving the Activa as alleged by OPs in message rather the same was driven by the complainant and at the time of accident it was parked properly. In this regard, he also stated that the authentic prove i.e. FIR has already submitted to opposite parties at their office but their investigator wrongly submitted the report that the said Active was driven by his daughter Jasleen Kaur without any authentic proof. It is worth to mention here that the police register the FIR against the driver of the tractor trolley on the correct facts and there is no investigation of the police or from any competent end till date that the Activa was driven by deceased Jasleen Kaur as alleged by opposite parties. The complainant also requested the opposite parties to provide any information or proof to him that Jasleen Kaur was driving the Activa as alleged by them in their message. But OPs failed to reply the same. In their letter dated 30.04.2019, OPs have submitted that the vehicle was removed from the spot of accident without their consent. It is worth to mention here that the same was done by police and not by the complainant. The complainant was not in position to immediately call them at the spot as her daughter died in the accident and further regarding the towing the vehicle from the spot as concern again the same was done by the police and not by the complainant. Hence, all the queries and questions made by them in their said letter is totally vague and incorrect. Since, the daughter of the complainant Jasleen Kaur was not driving the vehicle as such the question of submitting her driving license does not arise at all. Instead of passing the genuine claim of the complainant, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.05.2019 by wrongly stating that the complainant has not submitted the documents to their office. The complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel on dated 21.06.2019 and requested them to pass the genuine claim of the complainant after considering the whole facts. But even after receipt of the said legal notice the opposite parties failed to pay the genuine claim of the complainant and even did not bother to reply the said legal notice. The non-payment of the claim amount of the complainant and using delaying tactics is deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs 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 a compensation alongwith claim amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith the value of the repair of insured vehicle i.e. Rs.51,280/- alongwith interest as demanded be given to the complainant in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that as per available information, at the material time of accident it was deceased Jasleen Kaur (minor) was driving the insured Scoter and the same was not parked as alleged and the opposite parties demanded driving licence of Ms. Jasleen Kaur vide letter dated 30-04-2018 along with other clarifications sought for in the letter within seven days of the letter, but the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim and failed to respond in fulfillment of the requirements for processing and reviewing the admissibility of the claim, as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 22-05-2019 and the complainant was informed accordingly. It is wrong that the insured Activa Scooter was parked at the time of accident rather the same was driven by deceased Jasleen Kaur who was a minor and not authorized to drive the same as she was not holding a valid driving licence resulting in repudiation of the claim. The complainant has lodged a false FIR by concealing the negligence of the deceased Jasleen Kaur (minor) in order to get compensation on account of death of his daughter in the accident and to get claim in question in the present complaint. It is further averred that there is neither any negligence nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Repudiating the claim which is not payable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy does not amount to any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The claim of the complainant stands repudiated vide letter dated 22-05-2019 as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy after due application of mind and the complainant was informed accordingly. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from the OP is admitted. It is also admitted that at the time of purchasing the said vehicle, the vehicle was got insured by the representative of the OP and the facts regarding accident of the vehicle is also admitted, 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 to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
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 respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. It is proved that the complainant is the owner of the Honda Activa, which is proved from Ex.C-1, the tax invoice/bill and Ex.C-2 is the RC, which is in the name of the complainant. It is admitted fact that the Scooter Honda Activa was got insured from the OPs, which was valid from 04.02.2019 to 03.02.2020. The insurance policy has been proved as Ex.C-3/O-1. The complainant has alleged that on 24.03.2019 at about 03:30 pm, he had gone on the said Activa alongwith his daughter Jasleen Kaur to purchase household articles and when they reached near Preet Nagar Gurudwara Sahib, his daughter, who had seen her friend Satwant Kaur and they both started talking with each other, whereas the complainant had gone to nearby shop to purchase the article. The complainant has further alleged that one Tractor Trolly bearing No.PB08-CX-4442 suddenly came and hit Jasleen Kaur with the result she came under the front tyre of tractor and suffered grievous injuries. She was taken to Capital Hospital, Pathankot Road, but was declared brought dead, whereas her friend Satwant Kaur also got injuries and she was admitted to Kamal Hospital Jalandhar. He has proved on record the FIR Ex.C-4.
7. The contention of the OP is that though the vehicle was insured and the same was damaged due to accident, but the claim was not maintainable as the Activa was being driven by Jasleen Kaur, the daughter of the complainant, who was minor at the time of accident but this fact has been denied by the complainant. It is proved that Surveyor was appointed, who, has inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages also. Vide Ex.C-7, the OP has sought clarification regarding some queries, which were relating to the driving of the vehicle by the deceased Jasleen Kaur, the daughter of the complainant and regarding the removal of the vehicle from the spot without intimating to the OP, and demand of other documents. Vide Ex.C-9, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant has failed to respond to the fulfillment of the requirement for further processing, therefore the claim is repudiated.
8. The main allegation of the OP is that the claim cannot be passed and given to the complainant as the vehicle was being driven by the deceased, who was minor. He has relied upon the Pen Drive and Photographs of the spot. We have played the Pen Drive in which some police official is explaining about the accident and he is saying that the vehicle was being driven by Jasleen Kaur and the accident took place causing injuries to both the sisters namely Jasleen Kaur and Satwant Kaur, but perusal of the FIR Ex.C-4 and the copy of report u/S 173 Cr. P. C. show that the contents of the complaint were that the vehicle was being driven by complainant Inderpal Singh and both Satwant Kaur and Jasleen Kaur started talking with each other. In the entire FIR or report u/S 173 Cr. P. C., there is no reference of the fact that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased Jasleen Kaur, the minor daughter of the complainant nor there is reference of the fact that both Satwant Kaur and Jasleen Kaur are sisters. Even the photographs produced by the OP do not depict that the Activa was being driven by the deceased Jasleen Kaur nor there is any other picture/image to show that the same was being driven by the deceased Jasleen Kaur. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as “Kuldeep Singh D. Rana Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.” that ‘Insurance Accidental damage of vehicle insured with respondent-Repudiation of claim on ground that driver was not holding valid driving licence - Deficiency in service-Complaint-Compensation awarded-Order reversed by State Commission-Challenged by Revision petition-Held, since vehicle was damaged at that time when it was in stationary condition.-Thus, question of having valid driving licence by driver of vehicle is not material-Undisputedly, surveyors assessed sum of Rs.87,568 as damages for vehicle- Therefore, repudiation not justified - Impugned order set aside - Revision petition allowed. In the present case, since the vehicle was not being driven by the deceased Jasleen Kaur, the minor, therefore her driving license was not required. The complainant has proved that he was driving the vehicle and he has proved his driving license Ex.C-6. So, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, even otherwise since the vehicle was in a stationary condition, therefore the driving license of the driver is not material and the Hon'ble National Commission allowed the report of Surveyor.
9. The contention of the counsel for the OP that the statement has been given by the police official, which has been proved as Ex.O-4, therefore that should be relied upon is not tenable. Though the statement was given by the some police official, but FIR was got registered by the complainant, which nowhere finds the facts as stated by the police official in Ex.O-4. Similarly, after due investigation the report u/S 173 Cr. P. C. was produced before the Court, which has been proved as Ex.C-13 and even in this report, there is no reference of the facts stated by the police official in Ex.O-4. Even there is publication in the newspaper Jalandhar Savera, in which also the facts narrated in the FIR have been mentioned. Therefore, the facts mentioned in the report u/S 173 Cr. P. C Ex.C-13 cannot be ignored, therefore they are being relied upon. So, it is proved that the vehicle was being driven by the complainant and the Tractor Trolly hit both Satwant Kaur and Jasleen Kaur with the result Jasleen Kaur died and Satwant Kaur got injuries. So, repudiation on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by the minor is wrong and illegal. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, the report of the Surveyor is being considered, who has assessed the sum of Rs.34,469/- as damages for vehicle.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.34,469/- to the complainant as assessed by the Surveyor with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation the claim. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. 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 Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
20.03.2023 Member Member President
