DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/32/2023
Date of Institution: 27.03.2023
Date of Decision: 25.09.2024
Parkash Singh Gill son of Sh. Ajit Singh resident of Jhurar, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab-152112.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Go Digit General Insurance Limited, Atlantis 95, 4th B Cross Road, Koramangala Industrial Layout, 5th Block, Bengaluru-560095 through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Director/Authorized Signatory, Go Digit General Insurance Limited, Atlantis 95, 4th B Cross Road, Koramangla Industrial Layout, 5th Block, Bengaluru-560095.
3. M/s Dada Motors LLP, VPO Jassi Pauwali, GT Road (Mansa Road), Bathinda Ajoining Sushant City 2 Pin-151001 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Jatin Goyal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Bhushan Kumar Garg Adv counsel for O.P-1.
Opposite party No. 2 deleted.
None for opposite party No. 3.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Go Digit General Insurance Limited, Atlantis 95, 4th B Cross Road, Koramangala Industrial Layout, 5th Block, Bengaluru-560095 through its Director/Authorized Signatory & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the owner in possession of one- vehicle KIA Sonet D1.5 6MT HTX bearing registration no. PB- 53D-8181, which was got insured from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for the period from 18.02.2022 to 17.02.2023 and had duly paid the insurance premium against said insurance against which a policy bearing no. D079583862 was issued by the opposite party No.1. It is alleged that unfortunately on 08.12.2022, the complainant came to Barnala for the dubbing of his movie, as the complainant is an actor of Punjabi movies and when the complainant was returning back from Barnala then at around 7.30 PM, at a distance of about 5-6 kilometer from Barnala a stray animal came in front of the vehicle of the complainant suddenly due to which the said vehicle met with an accident and the said vehicle was being driven by the driver Jagraj Singh. It is further alleged that the said accident was intimated to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 who called the son of complainant and inquired the matter of accident but as his son was not having the knowledge of his visit to Barnala for dubbing as such, said representative collected some wrong information from the son of complainant who did not know about the accident. It is alleged that at the time of said accident Mr. Darshan Kumar son of Sh. Balbir Chand resident of Cheema District Barnala was also following and was coming behind and they witnesses the entire incident. Thereafter, the said vehicle was got repaired from opposite party No.3 on which an amount of Rs.1,64,762/- were spent on the spare parts and labour charges of said vehicle and the complainant had paid the said amount to opposite party No. 3. The complainant had already submitted all the requisite documents with the opposite parties for the disbursal of the amount of said insurance claim. It is further alleged that the opposite parties with malafide and dishonest intentions has wrongly repudiated the said claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.12.2022 and in the said letter they have wrongly mentioned that the complainant was not holding effective and valid driving license to drive the said vehicle. The complainant requested the opposite parties to issue disburse the claim amount of the complainant but they flatly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to release the claim amount of Rs. 1,64,762/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till realization.
- To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental harassment.
- Further, to pay Rs. 35,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the ground that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has filed false complaint to his knowledge, therefore the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission that on the date of accident, complainant did not have valid driving license to drive the insured car as complainant's driving license has been expired on 06.07.2021. It is further alleged that the complainant has wrongly misrepresented opposite party regarding the time of accident and the name of driver of the car driving at the time of accident and the complainant/insured has provide spot photograph of accidental car on which date & time shown as 08.12.2022 at 05:53 PM but as per insured statement accident held on 08.12.2022 at around 07:30 PM, there is mismatch in time of loss, reason is best known to complainant. Further the complainant has wrongly disclosed that the said Car No. PB-53D-8181 was being driven by some Jagraj Singh whereas complainant's son namely Simrat Gill who was contacted on the registered mobile number for verification of claim by opposite party has replied/stated that the insured Car No. PB-53D-8181 was being driven by his father Parkash Singh Gill and further surprised by hearing that the driving license of Jagraj Singh has attached with claim and denied this fact how the driving license of Jagraj Singh is attached. It is alleged that the complainant's son Simrat Gill further said that accident has been caused due to cow came in front of the car and the said conversation which has been taken place between the son of complainant and representative of replying opposite party has been recorded. The complainant has violated the terms and condition of the policy and misrepresented the facts that car was being driven by Jagraj Singh.
4. On merits, it is submitted that complainant Parkash Singh Gill got his KIA Sonet Car No. PB-53D-8181 insured from opposite party vide policy no. D079583862 for the period 18.2.2022 to 17.2.2023 and obtained Private Car package-Bundle policy and the said policy is subject to the standard policy wordings, warranties, conditions and exclusions. It is further submitted that the investigator namely SECURE RISK MANAGEMENT & INSURANCE SERVICES, KRISHNA COLONY, GT ROAD, GORAYA which has been appointed by replying opposite party has also made video of complainant in which complainant is disclosing how, when and where the accident of the said car took place. It is further alleged that the complainant did not have valid driving license to drive the insured car as complainant's driving license has been expired on 06.07.2021 but complainant nowhere has written in the complaint that complainant did not have valid driving license on the date of accident. It is denied that the opposite parties with malafide and dishonest intentions has wrongly repudiated the said claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.12.2022 and in the said letter they have wrongly mentioned that the complainant was not holding effective and valid driving license to drive the said vehicle. As such, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 4.1.2023. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant on 5.4.2023 has suffered the statement that he wants to withdraw the complaint qua the opposite party No. 2 and the same be deleted from the arena of opposite parties. In view of the statement of Ld. Counsel for complainant, the opposite party No. 2 is deleted from the arena of opposite parties.
6. The opposite party No. 3 filed written version on 16.5.2023 by taking preliminary objections on the ground that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering party as no cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the answering party. It is alleged that the answering opposite party has no role to play in the insurance claim of the vehicle and the dispute involved matter between the complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The only role played by the answering opposite party is that it has repaired the vehicle of the complainant when he brought his vehicle for accidental repairs and the same was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. On merits, all other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has suffered the statement on 27.7.2023 that I do not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant.
8. The complainant tendered into evidence I tender into evidence, affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, affidavit of Darshan Kumar as Ex.C-2, copy of insurance policy as Ex.C-3, copy of RC as Ex.C-4, copy of bill as Ex.C-5, copies of letters dated 19.12.2022, 30.1.22022, 4.1.20213 Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
9 The opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Aniruddha as Ex.OP 1/1, affidavit of Er.Rajesh Garg as Ex.OPI/2, affidavit of Amandee as Ex.OP1/3, copy of policy alongwith terms and conditions are Ex.OP1/4 (containing 7 pages), copy of Google timeline of insured mobile as Ex.OP1/5 (containing 6 pages), photographs of damaged car as Ex.OP 1/6, copy of letter dated 30.12.2022 as Ex.OP1/7 (containing 2 pages), copy of letter dated 19.12.2022 as Ex.OP1/8, copy of letter dated 04.01.2023 as Ex.OP1/9, copy of investigation report as Ex.OP1/10 (containing 2 pages), copy of surveyor report as Ex.OP1/11 (containing 3 pages), photograph showing mobile as Ex.OP1/12, copy of Google Timeline of alleged driver's mobile as Ex.OP1/13, CD (voice call recording of son of insured Parkash Singh Gill as Ex.OP1/14 and closed the evidence.
10. The evidence of opposite party No. 3 is closed by the order of this Commission dated 24.1.2024.
11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite party No. 3.
12. It is admitted case of the opposite parties that the vehicle Kia Sonet Car bearing registration No. PB-53D-8181 is owned by the complainant and the same was insured from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for the period from 18.2.2022 to 17.2.2023. It is further admitted case of the opposite parties that the said vehicle was met with an accident on 8.12.2022. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that unfortunately on 08.12.2022 the complainant came to Barnala for the dubbing of his movie as the complainant is an actor of Punjabi movies and when the complainant was returning back from Barnala then at around 7.30 PM at a distance of about 5-6 kilometer from Barnala a stray animal came in front of the vehicle of the complainant suddenly due to which the said vehicle met with an accident and the said vehicle was being driven by the driver Jagraj Singh. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that at that time of accident Mr. Darshan Kumar son of Sh. Balbir Chand resident of Cheema District Barnala was also following and was coming behind and witnessed the entire incident. Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that in the said accident the vehicle was badly damaged and complainant spent Rs. 1,64,762/- on the repair and submitted the claim with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. But the opposite parties repudiated the claim of complainant with malafide and dishonest intention.
13. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission that on the date of accident the complainant did not have valid driving license to drive the insured car as the driving license of the complainant was expired on 6.7.2021. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the complainant has wrongly disclosed that the said Car No. PB-53-D-8181 was being driven by some Jagraj Singh, whereas complainant’s son namely Simrat Gill who was contacted on the registered mobile number for verification of claim by opposite parties and he replied that insured Car No. PB-53D-8181 was being driven by his father Parkash Singh Gill. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties further argued that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 4.1.2023 as at the time of accident Parkash Singh Gill was driving the vehicle and he did not possess any effective and valid driving license to drive the vehicle.
14. The complainant has produced the affidavit of eye witness namely Darshan Kumar son of Sh. Balbir Chand resident of Cheema, District Barnala as Ex.C-2 in which he supported the version of complainant and deposed that the vehicle in question was driven by Jagraj Singh with the whom the complainant Parkash Singh Gill was sitting and I identified that he is an actor. The complainant also produced the copy of driving license of Jagraj Singh as Ex.C-9. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties produced the investigation report conducted by Secure Risk Management & Insurance Services as Ex.O.P1/10 in which the Investigator mentioned that “In our observations/findings insured may hiding actual driver details and time of loss from insurer, Insurers may proceed with the settlement of the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy”. The opposite parties also produced the Google Time Line of the complainant as Ex.O.P1/5 to prove that at the time of accident the complainant was present at the spot of accident. The Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the Investigator also tried to produce the Google Time Line of the alleged driver Jagraj Singh but at that time mobile shown off. The opposite parties also produced one CD which was got prepared by the Investigator to prove that the vehicle was being driven by the complainant Parkash Singh Gill at the time of accident. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the Google Time Line and the CD produced by the opposite parties has no value in the eyes of law as to prove the above said electronic evidence the opposite parties have not submitted the certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. 15. We have gone through the evidence produced by the opposite parties and it is established that to prove the electronic evidence, the opposite parties have failed to produce the certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties on the report of Investigator but Investigator has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the vehicle was being driven by complainant Parkash Singh Gill at the time of accident. Moreover, Investigator mentioned in his report that insured may hiding actual driver details. It means Investigator is not sure about driver. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Geeta Devi in Revision Petition No. 2577 of 2017 decided on 12.9.2017 held that “there is no eye witness who may have seen either deceased Kishan Lal or deceased Salim Ullah driving the truck at the time it got swept away in the flood waters”. The Hon’ble National Commission further held that “in the absence of such an evidence, it would be difficult to know as to who out of the two occupants of the truck was driving the same at the time this unfortunate incident happened”. The Hon’ble National Commission further held in Para No. 5 of this judgment that “The aforesaid report of the investigator is based upon the information stated to have been obtained by him from third parties. However, neither the affidavit nor any statement of any such person confirming the heights of late Shri Kishan Lal and the late Shri Salim Ullah has been filed by the insurer. In the absence of such an evidence, the report of the investigator cannot be said to have proved that late Shri Kishan Lal was a tall person whereas Salim Ullah is a short person. In any case, what is more material is that there is no direct evidence to even prove that the truck was being driven by a tall person and the short person was sitting on the sea adjoining the seat of the driver”. The Hon’ble National Commission further held that “The onus was upon the insurer to prove that the vehicle was being driven by Kishan Lal at the time it got swept away in the flood water. No direct evidence to prove the said allegation having been produced by the petitioner company”.
16. In the present case the opposite parties have also failed to produce any statement of eye witness to prove that at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Parkash Singh Gill instead of Jagraj Singh driver. The information collected by the investigator are from third parties. There is no direct evidence produced by the opposite parties that the vehicle was being driven by Parkash Singh Gill at the time of accident.
The opposite parties also produced the Surveyor report conducted by Er. Rajesh Garg as Ex.O.P1/11. The Surveyor also assessed the loss in the present case. The complainant has produced the repair bill as Ex.C-5 which shown that the vehicle was got repaired from the authorized Kia Agency and the same bill is un-rebutted and the same is of Rs. 1,64,762/-.
17. From the above said facts and evidence produced by both the parties it is established that the opposite party No. 1 has repudiated the claim of complainant on unreasonable and unjustified grounds which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1.
18. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,64,762/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its actual realization to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- on the account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
25th Day of September, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
