Punjab

Sangrur

CC/589/2017

Golden Earth Global Senior Secondary School - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Ratol

11 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    589

                                                Instituted on:      02.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       11.04.2018

 

Golden Earth Global Senior Secondary School, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Executive Director, Tejinder Singh Walia.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, above Harman Hotel, Kaula Park, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP                      :       Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Tejinder Singh Walia, Executive Director Golden Earth Global Senior Secondary School, Sangrur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his Tata ACE Magic  having registration number PB-13-AL-6485 vide policy number 00299073/00/000 for the period from 24.3.2015 to 23.3.2016 by paying the requisite premium.  The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 18.11.2015 near Village Roshanwala on Sangrur Patiala Road when the same was hit by a tralla, which was being driven by its driver on rash and negligent manner and Shri Nirmal Singh, driver of the vehicle died on the spot, of which FIR number 107 dated 18.11.2015 was registered in PS Sadar, Sangrur.  Thereafter the intimation of the accident was given to the OP and the OP appointed surveyor Shri R.K. Garg.  The vehicle in question suffered total loss in the accident.  Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents to the OP, but the claim was not paid.  The complainant earlier filed a complaint number 689 dated 8.12.2016 and in that, the learned counsel for the OP made a statement for deciding the claim within one month on 1.2.2017. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver Nirmal Singh was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident, which is said to be wrong.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.3,83,800/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP,  preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and that the complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is insured with the OP under the policy for the period from 24.3.2015 to 22.3.2016 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted that the driver Nirmal Singh died in the accident. It is stated further that after receipt of the intimation, the OP appointed surveyor M/s. RK Garg, who assessed the loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  But, thereafter it was found that the driver of the insured vehicle, Shri Nirmal Singh was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident, as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 8.9.2017.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his Tata ACE Magic  bearing registration number PB-13-AL-6485 from the OP for the period from 24.3.2015 to 23.3.2016 by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 18.11.2015 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, of which intimation was given to the OP and the OP appointed surveyor to assess the loss. But, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly and illegally repudiated on the ground of not having the effective driving license by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident on 18.11.2015.  

 

6.             In the present case, the ground of repudiation of the claim by the OP is that on the date of accident i.e. 18.11.2015, the driver of the vehicle Shri Nirmal Singh was not having a valid driving license, whereas on the other hand the stand of the complainant is that Shri Nirmal Singh was having a valid driving license and to support such a contention, he has produced on record the copy of the driving license as Ex.C-4 and further the same is supported by the report of District Transport Officer, Bishnupur, District Manipur, copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has also produced on record the copy of verification report on record as Ex.OP-1 issued by the District Transport Officer, Bishnupur, Distt. Manipur, which clearly shows that the license is fake one. Now, in the present case, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the driver of the vehicle Nirmal Singh was having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident or not.  Our answer is yes.  We have perused the verification report Ex.OP-1 which has been produced by the OP, but we are unable to go with this contention of the OP that the report is genuine one, as the same is not supported by any sworn affidavit of the investigator, Shri S. Dhanewshwar Sharma.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP why the affidavit of the said investigator Shri Sharma was not produced on record to support his contention about the report.  If the position was so that the driving license of Nirmal Singh was fake one, then why the Op did not get produce the record of the Licensing Authority, Bishnupur, Distt. Manipur.  To support such a contention, reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court pronounced in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Maha Singh and others 2013(3) PLR 220 (Punjab and Haryana High Court).  Further the Punjab State Consumer Commission in case titled as Rakesh Kumar versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000(2) CPJ 186 has held that when a licensing authority issues letter from which two interpretations were possible, then one of them favouring the complainant consumer should be adopted, as such, we feel that in the present case the verification report produced by the complainant should be applicable.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the driver of the vehicle Shri Nirmal Singh was having a valid driving license at the time of accident.

 

7.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the OP has produced on record the copy of survey report on record as Ex.OP-2, whereby the surveyor Shri Pushpinder K. Garg has assessed the loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,33,288/- after deducting policy clause and salvage value.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the Op is directed to pay to the complainant the above said amount of Rs.233,288/-

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

9.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,33,288/- only along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 2.11.2017 till realisation. The OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation as well as an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        April 11, 2018.

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                            Presiding   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member