DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

===

Gurpreet Singh S/o late Sh. Ravinder Singh, resident of H. No. 70, Phase VI, Mohali

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Quite Office No.10 1st/2nd Floor, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh 160036 through its Legal Manager Ms. Gurpreet Bhullar.

2]  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO  501, Sector 70, Mohali through its Incharge.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

        DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Navin Kapur, counsel for complainant

          Sh.Nitin Kant Setia, Counsel for OPs.

                      ---

PER SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

         Brief fact of the case are, the complainant’s mother Amarjeet Kaur got her car Maruti Zen bearing No.HP-31-5075 insured vide policy No.3001/55325193/00/800 from OPs which was valid from 25.10.2008 to 24.10.2009. The said vehicle met with an accident on 31.7.2009  at Sunder Nagar (HP) while being driven by Sh. Kamal Preet Singh who was holding a valid and effective driving licence. The complainant averred that the OPs released the own damage claim but the claim with regard to personal Accident Cover for owner-driver to the extent of Rs.2 lakh was rejected vide letter dated 2.12.2009. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, who directed the OPs to review the claim but no action has been taken so far. Hence this complaint.

2.       In the their reply the OPs admitted factual matrix of the case. The OPs submitted that as per the Indian Motor Tariff guideline GR-36 only the person holding an effective driving license is eligible for the compulsory Personal Accident Cover. But in the present case the complainant has not supplied the required documents for processing the claim. The complainant did not supply Driving licence of the owner-driver of the vehicle which was required to ascertain whether the claim of the complainant was valid or not. The OPs further stressed that it never refuted the claim of the complainant but they are ready to honour the claim subject to supply of original driving licence of the owner-driver.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.      The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

4.      We have heard the Learned Counsel parties and have also perused the record. 

5.       The only question to be determined in this case whether the claim of the complainant is to be released by the OPs without verification of the  original driving licence or complying with the provisions of GR-36 of the India Motor Tariff as per which the person holding an effective driving licence is eligible for personal accident claim. The answer to this is in negative.

6.       The learned counsel for OPs raised the plea that as per the GR-36 of India Motor Tariff, only the person holding an effective and valid driving licence is eligible for the compulsory personal accident claim.  Further, the perusal of clause GR-36 of India Motor Tariff makes it clear that the owner of the insured vehicle holding an effective and valid driving licence is termed as owner-driver for the purpose of this section. The NB attached with the GR-36 shows that only the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving licence. That compulsory personal accident cover cannot be granted where owner driver does not hold an effective driving licence.

7.       In the present case, the complainant has not produced the driving licence of owner-driver of the vehicle despite the repeated requests of the OPs which was required to ascertain the genuineness of the claim made by the complainant.  It was further argued by the learned counsel for OPs that OPs are ready to honour the claim subject to supply of the original driving licence of the owner-driver.

8.       It will not be out of place to mention here that vide zimini order dated 12.08.2011, the counsel for the OP submitted that without the driving licence of the deceased, it is not possible to settle the claim and on the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that as per Annexure P-10, the driving licence of the deceased has been misplaced and its due information has been given to the police.  

9.       Since the complainant did not supply the original driving licence of the owner-driver, which was required to ascertain whether the claim of the complainant was valid or genuine, so it cannot be held that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. More so, OPs have admitted in the reply that they are ready to owner the claim subject to supply of original driving licence of the owner-driver.

         In our considered opinion, the driving licence is most important document to ascertain whether the claim of the complainant is payable or not and in the absence of it, no direction can be issued to the OPs.

10.      Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as the OPs had already issued the insurance policy to the owner-driver, therefore, at this stage, the insurance company has got no right to ask the complainant to produce the owner-driver for verification purposes.  In our considered opinion this argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is not available to him because the OPs have got every right to ascertain the validity and genuineness of the driving licence at the time of settling and releasing the claim.  

11.      Under the given situation, the complainant is directed to trace the original driving licence of the owner-driver or to obtain duplicate driving licence and thereafter submit the same with the OPs for the purpose of verification and then OPs are directed to settle the claim of the complainant forthwith. The compliant stands disposed of with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that, in case, the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement, he has a right to approach the Forum again, as per law.

12.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.