DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  12.06.2017                                             Date of decision   :  18.06.2019

Sawaran Singh son of Shri Karam Chand, resident of House No.101, Ward No.6, Village Lohgarh, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     ICICI Lomard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhdevi, Mumbai 400025 through its authorised representative at Branch Office The Statement, Plot No.149, Fourth Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

2.     Charisma, SCO 69-71, Near Oasis Banquet, Opp. JP Hospital, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab, through its authorised representative.

                                                            ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Jasjit Singh, counsel for the complainant.                Shri Simrandeep Singh, counsel OP No.1.

                OP No.2 ex-parte.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, after purchasing motor bike of Splendor Plus make of Hero MotoCorp Ltd. on 28.10.2016 from OP No.2 for consideration of Rs.47,617/-, got the same insured with OP No.1 through OP No.2 by paying premium of Rs.1,867/- for Insured Declared Value of Rs.45,237/-. Policy cover was for period of one year i.e. for period from 28.10.2016 to 27.10.2017. This motorcycle met with an accident on 04.11.2016 and was taken to agency for repairs, where the technicians after inspecting the same declared it as a case of total loss. OP No.1 was informed about the accident and thereafter surveyor was deputed for assessing loss of damage. At the time of taking place of  accident in area of Zirakpur, Gurdeep Singh nephew of complainant was driving the motorcycle. Said Gurdeep Singh was holding valid and effective driving license. Despite submission of documents with surveyor, no claim has been processed by OP No.1 till date. Verification of driving license of Gurdeep Singh issued by Licensing Authority Patiala dated 04.01.2017 shows as if license was valid for period from 09.11.2014 to 08.11.2023. Complainant had not been informed in writing about rejection of claim at all and that is why by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to pay Rs.45,237/- the IDV of the motorcycle. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply submitted by OP No.1, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is misconceived, baseless, false and frivolous, due to which same is not maintainable because no cause of action even has accrued in favour of complainant. Complaint alleged to be filed against OP No.1 just for harassing him and for extracting illegal money by way of abusing process of law. Contract of insurance is subject to terms and conditions of the policy, which were explained to complainant while supplying copy of policy. Admittedly motor cycle in question met with an accident regarding which intimation was given to OP No.1, but it is denied that total loss of motorcycle in question took place. When complainant visited office of OP No.1, then copy of surveyor report was supplied to him. After getting of verification report of driving license, surveyor found the same to be not a valid driving license. Number of driving license is mentioned as 53173/CO4 in the written statement. As driving license of Gurdeep Singh was found invalid and that is why claim was repudiated. Report of DTO shows as if above numbered driving license was valid for period from 09.01.2004 to 08.01.2014, but accident took place on 28.10.2016 and as such Gurdeep Singh was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident. By denying other averments of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence.   On the other hand counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1  of Shri Apurva Sharma, Legal Manager  and affidavit Ex.OP-1/2 of Shri Jatin Arora, appointed Surveyor alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and thereafter closed evidence.

5.             Written arguments submitted by OP No.1, but not by complainant. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

6.             Getting of motorcycle in question insured with OP No.1 through insurance cover note Ex.C-2 = Ex.OP-1 is an admitted fact. Copy of retail invoice Ex.C-1 shows as if this motorcycle was purchased by complainant from OP No.2 on 28.10.2016. Admittedly accident in question took place during existence of insurance policy period. Copy of DDR Ex.C-3 produced to show as if accident took place on 04.11.2016 in area of Zirakpur, when Gurdeep Singh was driving the motorcycle in question. The only contentious issue remains as to whether Gurdeep Singh, driver of the motorcycle was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident or not. In case Gurdeep Singh found to be not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, then in view of driver clause contained in Ex.C-2 = Ex.OP-1 and as per terms and conditions of Ex.OP-2, complainant will not be entitled to any compensation amount.

7.             Ex.OP-3 is a claim form submitted with OP No.1. Driving license No.53175 of driver Gurdeep Singh is mentioned in this Ex.OP-3, but verification of driving license number 53713/CO3 obtained by surveyor is a fact borne from his report Ex.OP-4 alongwith annexure of endorsement of DTO, Patiala. Complainant through report Ex.C-4 even got verification of driving license number 53173/04 and as such it is obvious that in the claim form driving license number of Gurdeep Singh erroneously mentioned, but complainant and OP No.1 are sure that driving license number 53173 is driving license of Gurdeep Singh. That driving license in original was brought on 16.04.2019 by counsel for complainant and photocopies of that driving license produced on 16.04.2019. Perusal of this driving license reveals as if driving license bears No.PB11200440053173. This driving license is valid for LMV and MCWG for period from 09.11.2004 to 08.11.2023 as per photocopy of driving license. So driving license issued in favour of Gurdeep Singh son of Balvir Singh by DTO, Patiala was issued for enabling him to drive light motor vehicles or motorcycle without gear. So this driving license was for enabling Gurdeep Singh to drive non transport vehicle. As per Section 14 (2) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in case a driving license for transport vehicle got issued or renewed, then same will remain effective for a period of three years only. However, as per Section 14 (2) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in case driving license is for driving any other vehicle, then the same will remain effective for a period of 20 years from the date of such issue or renewal provided the person in whose favour driving license issued or renewed has not attained the age of 50 years on the date of issue or date of renewal, as the case may be. In case the person in whose favour driving license issued or renewed has attained age of 50 years, then such driving license will be issued for a period of 5 years from the date of issue or renewal as per Section 14 (2) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As the present driving license was issued for non transport vehicle for enabling Gurdeep Singh to drive light motor vehicles at the most and perusal of photostat copy of driving license shows that date of birth of Gurdeep Singh is 20.04.1982 and as such in view of date of issue of driving license as 09.11.2004, said Gurdeep Singh was 23 years of age on the date of issue of this driving license. Being so, in view of Section 14 (2) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this driving license was bound to be having validity for 20 years. So report Ex.C-4 obtained by complainant from Registering Authority, Patiala is correct that Gurdeep Singh was having his driving license valid for period from 09.11.2004 to 08.11.2023 because this period will be the validity period of 20 years. However, in case contents of report got by Shri Jatin Arora, Surveyor taken into consideration, then this means that Gurdeep Singh was issued driving license for driving scooter and car for period of 10 years only because the validity period of same mentioned as 09.01.2004 to 08.01.2014 in the verification report of DTO as well as in letter Ex.OP-4 of the investigator. There is no section in the Motor Vehicles Act as per which driving license for scooter or car will be having validity for 10 years because as already discussed above, validity of driving license for driving scooter and car can be 20 years in the case driver concerned has age less than 50 years, but this validity will be 5 years, in case driver has age of more than 50 years. So report obtained by Shri Jatin Arora from DTO, Patiala is not in consonance with provisions of Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such that report is not believable, more so when original driving license produced alongwith verification report Ex.C-4 is showing validity of driving license for 20 years in consonance with provisions of Section 14 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, referred in detail above. So repudiation of claim on ground of invalidity of driving license certainly is incorrect and not in consonance with the spirit of Section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the valuer/investigator was misled by report of DTO, Patiala and as such entitlement of complainant for amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment or of litigation expenses must not be excessive. Insurance claim is payable by OP No.1 and not by seller of the vehicle in question and as such OP No.2 certainly has been unnecessarily dragged in this litigation. Being so, complaint against OP No.2 merits dismissal and same is hereby dismissed.

8.             Shri Jatin Arora, Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor through report Ex.OP-6 has not assessed the loss of damage and as such it cannot be made out as to how much amount actually payable by OP No.1 to complainant. In such circumstance, it is fit and appropriate to direct OP No.1 to settle claim of complainant within specified period by taking as if driver was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Direction also need be issued to OP No.1 to pay the settled amount within specified period, failing which complainant should be given entitlement of interest @ 8% per annum on the settled amount from the date of complaint namely 12.06.2017 till payment.

9.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed against OP No.1 only with direction to him to settle the claim of the complainant within 40 days after receipt of copy of this order by taking as if the driver was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. After such settlement within 40 days from the receipt of copy of the order, payment be made within 30 days thereafter, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the settled amount from the date of complaint namely 12.06.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP 1. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation cost be made within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of order. Complaint against OP No.2 is, however, dismissed.  Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 18, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member