Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/103/2015

Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen.Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajmat Singh

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 103 of 2015

                                           Date of institution : 17.11.2015                               

                                              Date of decision    : 06.10.2017

Rajinder Singh aged about 44 years son of Harbans Singh resident of village Badouchhi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. I.C.I.C.I.  Lombard General Insurance Company, ICICI Lombard House, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sindhi Vinayak Temple Prabhadevi, Mumbai Maharastra-400025 through its authorized signatory.
2. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company through its branch Manager, branch office near Malwa Cinema, Bank Complex Chotti Barandari Patiala, District Patiala.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                        

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

Present :  Sh.Rajmat Singh Adv. counsel for the complainant.          

             Pt. Narinder Kumar, Adv.Cl. for Opposite parties.

ORDER

 

Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

            Complainant, Rajinder Singh aged about 44 years son of Harbans Singh resident of village Badouchhi Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.         The complainant got insured his Toyota Etios Liva Car, bearing registration No.PB-23-P5707, vide certificate of insurance cum policy dated 09.07.2015 for the period from 31.07.2015 to 30.07.2016 with the OPs. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 05.09.2015, in the area of village Chanarthal Kalan Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, when the car was rammed into the electric pole to avoid collision with the bus, which was coming on wrong side. As a result of said accident, the car was extensively damaged and the complainant also sustained injuries on his person and got himself treated from J.K. Hospital Fatehgarh Sahib. At the time of accident, the said car was being driven by the complainant, who is holding a valid and effective driving license, which is valid for the period from 26.11.1991 to 24.04.2021. The complainant immediately informed OPs regarding the said accident and OPs appointed its surveyor. The complainant was also advised by the OPs to get the car inspected from any authorized dealer of Toyota Etios. Accordingly, the complainant got the car inspected by EM-PEE motor Ltd., Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.154-156, Focal Point Patiala and the dealer reported the loss to the tune of Rs.1,67,851/- for replacement of parts and Rs.37,228/- as labour charges. The said estimate was handed over to the OPs by the complainant and requested to settle the claim as early as possible. The complainant submitted all the required papers i.e. driving license, registration certificate and insurance policy etc at the time of lodging the claim with the OPs for its settlement. But the OPs did not pay the charges of repair of the car to the complainant and vide letter dated 16.10.2015, they repudiated the claim alleging that the driving license of the complainant is not valid.  Out of the amount of estimate the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- through cheques and remaining amount is to be paid by the complainant at the time of delivery of the car after repair. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.2,05,000/- as amount of claim on account of repair of the car and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony, humiliation and unwanted litigation.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter  alia, that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature; the complainant has concealed and suppressed the material and relevant facts of the case and the complaint has been filed with malafide and dishonest intention; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the allegation of the complainant are highly disputed and complicated questions of law and facts are involved; the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified money from the OPs. As regards the facts of the complaint, OPs stated that after getting the information, the OPs appointed surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant. The said surveyor EM. Pee. Motors Ltd. Patiala assessed the loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The estimate submitted by the complainant was highly excessive and exaggerated.   Further the complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OPs as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of documents i.e. R.C. Ex. C-2, policy Ex. C-3, Driving license Ex. C-4, estimate Ex. C-5, cheques Ex. C-6 & C-7, letter dated 07.09.2015 Ex. C-8, receipt Ex. C-9, letter dated 16.10.2015 Ex. C-10, policy Ex. C-11 & C-12, patient slip Ex. C-13, Driving license of Satish Rani Ex. C-14,  statements of account Ex. C-15, pass book Ex. C-16, receipt Ex. C-17 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Meenu Sharma Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. survey report Ex. OP-2, verification of DL Ex. OP-3, letter dated 16.10.2015 Ex. OP-4, terms and conditions Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.

5.                   Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant in an arbitrary and illegal manner. He submitted that the complainant had completed all the formalities as per the terms and conditions of the policy, as all the required documents i.e. driving license, registration certificate and insurance policy were submitted at the time of lodging the claim with the OPs for settlement of the claim. Learned counsel pleaded that the OPs did not pay the charges of repair of the car to the complainant and vide letter dated 16.10.2015,Ex.C-10 they repudiated the claim, alleging that the driving license of the complainant was not valid. In support of his contentions, the Ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon some judgements titled as 1) New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dr. J.P. Jain in 2006(1) CPC 288; 2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others in 2004(1) ACJ 2; and 3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nebh Raj and others in 2004 ACJ 209.

6.                   On the, other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has pleaded that   surveyor EM. Pee. Motors Ltd. Patiala assessed the loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex. OP-2. He stated that the estimate submitted by the complainant was highly excessive and exaggerated and as per verification of driving license from DTO, Patiala , Ex. OP-3, it was found that complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Learned counsel argued that the claim had been rightly repudiated by the OPs as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex. OP-5. He argued that from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is ample clear that there are complicated questions involved that can only be adjudicated upon by cross examination and voluminous evidence is required to be recorded before the civil court or Tribunal.

7.                   We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence led by the parties, written submissions as well as oral submissions. It is an admitted case that on the date of accident, vehicle was insured with the OPs. It is established from the final survey report, Ex.OP-2 that during investigation and verification of the driving license, it was found that driving license No.32598\P\2021 had expired on 24.04.2010 as is evident from Ex.OP.3 verification report of DTO Patiala, whereas the complainant submitted that the driving license with the validity till 24.04.2021 which was found to be fake. In our opinion, it stands proved from the material placed on record and  the statement of Sh.Nirver Singh, data Entry Operator, DTO office, Patiala, wherein he has stated that “As per record available in their office, renewal of license has not been granted beyond dated 22.11.1991 to 24.04.2010. No other record regarding renewal of Driving License of Rajinder Singh son of Harbans Singh is available in their office”. The case law citied by the learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case.

8.          Hon’ble National Commision in case titled as Alok Waghe V/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co,Ltd, in Revision Petition no.75-76 of 2013, date of decision 25/09/2013, wherein it was held that:

"6.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though licence was not renewed on the date of accident but as driver of the vehicle was not disqualified from driving petitioner was entitled to get compensation on non-standard basis.  He placed his reliance on (2010) 4 SCC 536–Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Perusal of aforesaid citation clearly reveals that in that case one of the employees of the tenant of the complainant approached the complainant to handover the aforesaid vehicle for few hours for urgent use and no rent was charged by the complainant from the tenant for the use of vehicle. The vehicle met with an accident and in such circumstances, 75% claim was allowed on non-standard basis. This citation does not help to the cause of the petitioner because driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident.  In III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Kumar and III (2010) CPJ 256 (NC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sansar Chand, this Commission held that if driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence to drive that particular type of vehicle at the time of accident, Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse damages to the vehicle.

7.      In the light of aforesaid judgements it becomes clear that when the drivers licence was not valid and was not renewed at the time of accident, petitioner is not entitled to 75% of the claim on non-standard basis and respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim".

9.                    Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion and the decision of  Hon’ble National Commission, in case titled as  Alok Waghe V/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd,  Supra) , we find that  the complainant was possessing a fake and invalid license at the time of accident and the claim of the complainant was repudiated in view of the terms and conditions of the policy. We further find that OPs had not committed deficiency of service while repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence the present complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Parties to bear their own costs.  

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 29.09.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:06.10.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

 

(Inder Jit)            

Member