Haryana

Karnal

CC/33/2016

Fakir Chand S/o Rula Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGo General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Mehar Sharma

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.33 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 02.02.2016

                                                         Date of decision:08.02.2018

 

Fakir Chand son of Shri Rula Ram resident of village Kutail, Tehsil and District Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. The HDFC, Ergo, General Insurance Company, through its Authorized Signatory, 1^st floor, 165-166, Backbay, Reclamation, H.T.Parekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020.

2. The HDFC, Ergo, General Insurance Company, through its Authorized Signatory, Karnal.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani…….Member 

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

 Present  Shri Ram Mehar Sharma  Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for OPs.

             

               

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR-45B-0949 with the OPs, vide policy no.006600370625, valid from 30.62014 to 29.6.2015. The said vehicle met with an accident and huge loss was caused to the vehicle. Complainant intimated the OPs and OPs appointed a surveyor for the spot survey. Thereafter, claim no.12514109 dated 23.9.2015 for Rs.2,28,721/- was lodged with the OPs. The complainant completed all the formalities which was sought by the OPs and a thorough investigation was carried out by the investigator of the OPs and OPs assured for the claim payment to the complainant but complainant received the letter from the OPs on 6.9.2015 for repudiating his claim on the grounds that Driving Licence was fake/invalid. Due to the act, conduct and deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, the complainant suffered mental agony and pain. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2015 to the OPs in that regard but in vain. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the claim of the complainant was made as no claim due to the reason that driver i.e. Fakir Chand who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid driving license and the same was duly conveyed to the complainant through letter dated 29.9.2015 and further on the complaint of complainant again conveyed the same to the complainant through letter dated 6.10.2015. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22 and closed the evidence on 25.1.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O9 and closed the evidence on 31.8.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the claim of the complainant for the damage to his vehicle in an accident has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that complainant Fakir Chand who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid driving licence.

7.             The dispute between the parties is only that whether Fakir Chand(complainant) who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was having a valid driving licence or not?

8.             To prove Fakir Chand was not having valid licence on 27.6.2015 (the date of accident), the OP produced Ex.O-7 a letter/ Public Information dated 1.8.2014 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Motor Vehicle Department, office of the Transport Commissioner. The relevant part of the same is as under:-

        “With a view to authenticate the genuine Driving Licenses it is hereby notified that all Driving License holders having the Booklet or on any manual formats other than Smart Card must report to the office where they have been issued for the purpose of digitizing their date and subsequent issue in Smart Card format. This must be completed before 1^st December, 2014 after which Driving Licenses other than Smart Card shall be treated as cancelled.”

The OPs have also produced the verification report Ex.O-6 of the Driving Licence of complainant, according to which the driving licence of complainant was not found issued on Smart Card SARATHI and as per notification from Transport Commissioner, Kohima, the licence is treated as cancelled.

9.             The complainant has produced in his evidence, the driving licence of Fakir Chand issued on Smart Card as Ex.C-5 and issued on manual format as Ex.C-6. As per notification Ex.O-7, the driving licence Ex.C-6 has been treated as cancelled after 1.12.2014, therefore, this licence was not valid on 27.6.2015. The second driving licence Ex.C-5 of the complainant is on the Smart Card but the same was issued on 13.10.2015, therefore, the same became valid from 13.10.2015. From the above facts, it is clear that complainant Fakir Chand was not holding a valid driving licence on 27.6.2015 the date of accident and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs have committed no mistake in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence no deficiency was found on the part of the OPs.

10.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.02. 2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)                (Anil Sharma)           

                        Member                         Member