DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.271/18
Manish Logistics (India)
K-450, Gali No.12
Old Rangpuri Road
Mahipalpur
New Delhi-110037.
Through
Mahabir Prasad Sharma (Prop.) .…Complainant
VERSUS
The Manager
IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance
Co. Ltd. IFFCO SADAN
C-1 District Centre
Saket, New Delhi-110017. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Date of Institution:17.09.2018
Date of Order :11.12.2023
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award directing M/s The Manager Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to pay the claim amount of Rs.291899/- along with interest @ 18% from 17.05.2017 till date of payment; (ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental torture, pain and agony; (iii) to pay Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses etc. etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant being owner of the LGV – Swaraj Mazda bearing Regd. No. DL-1LX-3177 got insured the said vehicle by OP company vide Insurance Policy No.1-7CQQJMK/99591815 for the sum of Rs.9,16,750/- for the duration 12.08.2016 to 11.08.2017. Copy of the registration certificate is enclosed at Annexure-A. The said vehicle met accident on 17.05.2017 and complaint was registered with OP on the same day as customer care No. 18001035499. To this effect, a Surveyor was appointed by OP. On completion of Survey –report; the said vehicle was sent to OP’s authorised service centre i.e. Metal tech Motors Pvt. Ltd. Rajokari, New Delhi for repair vide job-card dated 18.05.2017. The complainant received bill of the repaired vehicle on 27.05.2017 for the amount of Rs.2,91,899/-. Accordingly, the complainant issued cheque for said amount. Copies of invoice and cheque thereof are annexed at Annexure C & D respectively. On the payment the complainant approached OP for the settlement of bill. Again on 08.08.2018, the complainant sent letter to OP for settlement of the bill. Copy of letter is enclosed at Annexure-E. OP sent a letter dated 25.06.2018, repudiating the claim on the ground that licence of the driver of the vehicle was not valid at the time of accident. Copy of said letter is enclosed at Annexure-F. The refusal of the claim tantamounts to unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP on the other hand filed its reply interalia raising preliminary submissions/objections. The complainant had not given intimation to the competent authority and no status report on driver and impact of accident on other states vehicle. The story so narrated was only for getting the vehicle repaired for normal wear and tear. The story of accident was created falsely to justify its claim. The complainant, Manish Logistics (India) through Mahavir Prasad Sharma (Prop) had not provided any such details which could establish his identity as proprietor. It was maintained that the complainant had admitted that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. As per terms of policy, it is fundamental and foremost condition that driver of commercial vehicle must possess the valid driving licence.
It was further stated that on the receipt of information of accident of said vehicle, the OP had appointed M/s Eminent Solver, as Surveyor. As per report of Surveyor, the said vehicle was being driven by Shri Baljeet Yadav. On verification of his driving licence (488/15) from Transport Authority, Darbhanga, Bihar, it was revealed that said driving lincence was not found issued in the name f Mr. Baljeet Kumar Yadav, the copy of the surveyor report is annexed. On the basis of said report, the OP Company issued “No Claim” letter dated 25.06.2018 mentioning therein that “In this regard, your kind attention is invited to General Exception No. 3 (b) of this policy “that on surveyor’s report the defendant insurance company had issued “No Claim” letter dated 25.06.2018 clearly mentioning that “In this regard your kind attention is invited to general exception No.3(b) of the policy which states that the company shall not be liable for any accidental loss while the vehicle insured is being driven by any person other than driver stated in the driver clause. The driver clause is given in the schedule of the policy which defines the driver as any person including insured provided that the person holds and effective driving license at the time of accident”.
It was stated that the complaint was based on serious facts and involves serious interpretation of law which could be decided by Civil Courts only. The OP had referred the Appeal no.8145/2018 SLP (C) No.6760/2017 stating the para 10 of complaint as clear violation of basic law of pleadings. The complainant has not requested for appointment of Arbitrator. The OP had filed Application for submission of additional documents as well as additional evidence by way of affidavit of Eminent Solve Serve, Surveyor. As per order sheet, these documents have not been taken on record.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in affidavits written statement is on record, so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record. Upon intimation from the complainant about the accident, the OP nominated M/s Eminent Solvserve Surveyor. The said Surveyor submitted its report which can be perused from the record and estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-. It was also stated vide his note that “since we have no resources in Bihar, hence OL sent to the competent Authority for verification at their end”.
Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, Investigator was deputed for verification. As per his report dated 24.11.2017, “…He visited the office of DTO – Darbhanga and provided screen report of DL No.BR – 0720140051274 in the name of Shri Dharmendera Jha and further provided:-
- The Smart Card DL bears DL No. as BR0420140051274 in the name of holder Baljeet Kr. Yadav. The same card bears the seal of DLO _ Darbhanga.
- The BR-04 is the code of DTI-Chapra
- The licence is manipulated and is a fake one.
It was further stated that on the basis of Surveyor’s report the OP-Company had issued “No claim” letter dated 25.06.2018. The OP company invoked the general exception 3(b) of the Policy which stipulates that the company shall not be liable for any accidental loss while the vehicle insured is being drawn by any other person than driver.
To this, the complainant had referred the Civil Appeal no.8145/2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.6760/2017, the Apex Court held that “if the owner of vehicle was aware of the fact that the driver of the vehicle is having fake driving licence and still permitted to “the driver” to drive the vehicle, than the insurer would stand absolved of the liability. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per say, would not absolve the insurer”.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion held above, this Commission is of the considered view that upon respecting the decision/ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court and failure on the part of OP to establish that the complainant was aware of the fact of fake driving licence of the driver, the OP Company is deficient in service. OP is directed to Pay Rs.2,63,570/- as assessed by Surveyor. The same to be paid within three months from the receipt of this order failing which interest @5% per annum shall be levied till its realisation. The other request of the complainant are rejected.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
