Complainant Ashwani Kumar has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,34,166/- and Rs.4500/- as remaining toe charges alongwith interest. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as mental pain and agony alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Pickup 407 TATA bearing registration No.PB-06-V-0128 and the same was financed by HDB financial Services, Patel Chowk, Pathankot.  The vehicle in question was insured in the office of HDB Financial Services vide policy no.2315201468241302000 which was valid from 31.7.2018 to 30.7.2019 and he had paid requisite premium Rs.20055/- with opposite party and said vehicle was fully insured with opposite party.  The vehicle was insured by the agent of opposite party whose code is 202047016703. He has next pleaded that his insured vehicle was driven by Sanjeev Kumar son of Naresh Kumar on 30.6.2019 from Dinanagar to Jalandhar when the insured vehicle reached at Purana Shalla the same  met with an accident, resultantly the vehicle was got damaged and it was toed and shifted to R.K.Body Builders Jammu Jalandhar Byepass Pathankot and got it repaired at the cost of Rs.1,34,166/- which were paid by him and  he also paid the toa charges to the Mehra Crane Service Pathankot to the tune of Rs.7000/- but bill issued by the repair shop mentioned it only Rs.2500/-. The information of accident was given to the opposite party on the same day and after compelling all the formalities all the documents were submitted alongwith driving license to the opposite party on the same day. When the vehicle was repaired, the opposite party repudiated his claim on the ground that driving license of Mr.Sanjeev Kumar issued from RTO Gurdaspur on verification from the concerned competent authority the said driving license has been found to be invalid on the date of loss while the submitted driving license is not invalid and issued by the competent authority. So, it is clear cut deficiency in services on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking  preliminary objections  and it was submitted on merits that in this case after receiving the information, the surveyor was appointed and the complainant provided the driving license of Sanjeev Kumar who was driving the vehicle at the time of loss. On verification of same from competent authority the said DL has been found to be invalid on the date of loss and it is a specific term and conditions of the policy that a person driving the vehicle be duly  valid/effective license on the day he/she is driving the vehicle. In case of an accident ,a  claim is not admissible if the person driving the vehicle has no valid license to drive. So in the present case Sanjeev Kumar was having no valid/effective driving license on the day of loss, therefore, the claim has been repudiated on this ground and due intimation of the same has been given  vide letter dated 22.10.2019, which is admittedly received by the complainant, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. So far as the amount of repair and payment to the crane service is concerned the complainant be put to strict proof thereof. Moreover, as admitted by the complainant in the present case, the vehicle was being driven by Sanjeev Kumar and his driving license was provided to the opposite party and after verification, it was found invalid, therefore, the claim was repudiated. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

4.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit  alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9.

5.      Alongwith the written statement ld.counsel for the opposite party has filed affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal, Assistant Manager-Legal Claims Ex.OP-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8.

6.        Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.         Written arguments have been filed on behalf of opposite party.

8.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       As detailed above it can be construed that there is no point of conflict between both the parties in the present complaint except the validity of the driving licence of driver of vehicle at the time of accident.

10.      The accident claim of vehicle pickup 407 Tata with registration no.PB-06-V-0128 filed by complainant has been repudiated by opposite party on the basis of the invalid driving licence of driver at the time of accident on 30.6.2019 vide letter dated 20.10.2019 placed at Ex.C-7.

11.     Opposite party placed on record the investigation  report of Surveyor at Ex.OP-5 wherein total loss assessment of vehicle for Rs.1,10,869/- has been mentioned and report of invalid driving licence was also attached duly endorsed by RTA Gurdaspur dated 15.10.2019.

12.    Both the parties have submitted the verification report from the same competent licensing authority for their claim of validity of the driving license. Opposite party has put on record the verification report duly endorsed without any official no of RTA Gurdaspur dated 15.10.2019 alongwith the survey report at Ex.OP-5 wherein it was  mentioned in the endorsement that validity of the driving license of Sanjeev Kumar was upto 1.12.2017 for  transport.

13.     But on the other hand complainant also placed on record the verification letter issued by same authority i.e. RTA Gurdaspur  on their letter head  vide reference No.12181 dated 1.12.2020 at Ex.C-9 wherein it was clearly written that endorsement  commercial driving license No.PB-0620130050924 issued on 23.5.2017 valid upto 1.12.2020.

14.       It is also pertinent to mention that opposite party has neither replied to rejoinder on this point of validity of licence upto 1.12.2020, which means driving license was valid at the time of the accident of the said vehicle nor any effort is made by opposite party to process the case of complainant. The verification report submitted by complainant has been issued after the previous report of opposite party. Hence it supersede the previous report.

15.       In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that denial of the insurance claim of the complainant is not justified on the part of opposite party as the complainant has got the clarification issued on the point of objection of opposite party from the competent authority regarding validity of driving licence of the driver at the time of accident.

16.     Hence we partly allow the present complaint of the complainant and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,10,869/- the amount shown in summary of loss assessment of survey report alongwith 6% interest from date of filing of the case till its realization within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the orders. Further opposite party is directed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and harassment to the complainant.

17.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

18.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                         

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

August 11, 2022                                                  Member

*MK*