STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

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

                                                                .…Appellant

                                Versus

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

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

                                                …. Respondents 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                SHRI. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Present: Sh.Navin Kapur, Advocate for the appellant.

              Sh.Nitin Kant Setia, Advocate for the respondents.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This is an appeal filed by the complainant (now appellant) against the order, dated 14.10.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 729 of 2010 vide which, it disposed of the complaint with the following observations:-

“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”.

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that 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 the Opposite Parties, which was valid from 25.10.2008 to 24.10.2009. The vehicle, in question, 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. It was stated that the Opposite Parties released the own damage claim but the claim with regard to personal Accident Cover for owner-driver to the extent of Rs.2 lacs, was rejected, vide letter dated 2.12.2009. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, who directed the Opposite Parties to review the claim, but no action had been taken so far.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written version, the Opposite Parties admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It was stated by the Opposite Parties that as per GR-36 of India Motor Tariff Guidelines only the person holding an effective driving licence was eligible for the compulsory Personal Accident Cover, but in the present case, the complainant failed to supply the required documents for processing the claim. It was further stated that the complainant did not supply the driving licence of the owner-driver of the vehicle, which was required, to ascertain, whether his claim was valid or not. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never refuted the claim of the complainant, but they were ready to release the claim, subject to supply of the original driving licence of the owner-driver.  It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, written arguments submitted by the parties, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the District Forum wrongly disposed of the complaint, by directing the appellant/complainant,  to trace the original driving licence of the owner-driver or to obtain duplicate driving licence and thereafter submit the same to the Opposite Parties for the purpose of verification and settlement of the claim of the complainant forthwith. He further submitted that the Insurance Policy did not contain any such condition that the owner driver must hold a driving licence to claim the coverage. He further submitted that  there was no clear mention under Section  (b) of Limits of Liability about PA cover for owner driver and also the same was not mentioned in schedule of premium in the said policy itself. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, and perverse, is liable to be set aside.

9.                    The Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the original driving licence of the owner-driver was necessary to ascertain the genuineness of claim, and without the verification of the same, the claim could not be settled and, as such, the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld.

10.                 Admittedly, the vehicle, in question, was already insured with the respondents/Opposite Parties  on the date of accident i.e. 31.07.2009 and the same was being driven by the driver-Sh.Kamal Preet Singh.  As per the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, the owner-driver must hold an effective driving licence in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.  In order to process the claim under the Personal Accident Cover, the respondents asked the appellant, to provide the original licence of the owner-driver for ascertaining its genuineness, but he failed to do so. In our considered view, in the absence of original  owner-driver licence or duplicate owner-driver licence, the claim of the appellant, under the Personal Accident Cover could not be processed.  Hence, there was no deficiency, in service,  on the part of the Opposite Parties.   However, the facts of the case titled as Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs.  Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. 2000(1 Apex Court Journal 398 (SC) relied upon by the appellant, are distinguishable, from the facts of the present case and, thus, no help can be drawn by the appellant from the ratio of law, laid down therein.  We are, therefore, of the considered view that the District Forum, rightly disposed of the complaint, by directing the appellant/complainant, to trace the original driving licence of the owner driver or to obtain the duplicate driving licence and thereafter submit the same to the respondents, for the purpose of verification, and settlment of claim, under the Personal Accident Cover.

11.                 The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

12.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                          Sd/-

09.02.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                    PRESIDENT         

                                    Sd/-

                             [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

Sd/-

                                                                 [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg