Haryana

Ambala

CC/83/2016

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

I.S. Gill

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 83 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 08.02.2016.

                                                          Date of decision   : 30.01.2018.

 

Balwinder Singh son of Late Sh.Harbhajan Singh resident of Saha Chowk, VPO Saha, Tehsil  Barara District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.6330, 2^nd Floor, Above Dena Bank Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.

….…. Opposite party.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT    

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.I.S.Gill, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.M.Bindal, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that his father Sh.Harbhajan Singh was registered owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-31-F-8537 and he died in an accident on 18.07.2014 when he was using the same for earning his livelihood. During his lifetime he got his truck insured with OP vide policy No.84829940 dated 14.08.2013 having validity from 14.08.2013 to 13.08.2014. In the accident the truck also got damaged badly and regarding this FIR No.110 dated 18.07.2014 at P.S.Panjokra District Ambala was got registered driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No.HP64-9756 under Section 279/427/304-A IPC. After the accident the complainant informed the OP regarding this and also took the vehicle by crane to Saini Motor Workshop, Motor Market, GT Road, Ambala City for repair. The OP/insurance company appointed surveyor Mr.A.S.Chhatwal who took photographs of the said damaged vehicle and also completed the formalities with regard to claim. As per instruction of the surveyor the complainant got the vehicle repair by spending a sum of Rs.2,44,904/- but the OP/insurance company vide its letter dated 09.10.2015 repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant solely on the ground that the driving license of the driver Sh.Harbhajan Singh was issued by District Transport Officer of Distict Teensng, Nagaland was fake and was not valid on the date of accident as it was not on smart card being issued on manual format. Sh.Harbhajan Singh, driver of the insured vehicle had died on 18.07.2014 before the circular issued by Transport Commission, Nagaland dated 01.08.2014. The OP has wrongly and illegally repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C18.

2.                On notice OP appeared and contested the claim by filing its reply wherein it has taken many preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts from this Forum and locus standi etc.  The insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant being late intimated i.e. on 08.08.2014 after a delay of 22 days by violating the condition No.1 of the policy. After intimation the surveyor was appointed who had inspected the vehicle and filed his detailed report wherein he had assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.1,52,102/- subject to terms and conditions of policy. The driving license of the driver of the vehicle was found fake on verification as there was no record with regard to said DL and the concerned authority has also sent a notification issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland confirming that all the driving licenses shown to be issued on other than smart card format like booklet format etc. after 30.10.2009 are not genuine and were declared fake. Even otherwise also a person resident of Haryana cannot legally have a driving license from such a faraway place since as per law prescribed under the motor Vehicle Act, driving licence can only be issued to a person who has residential proof of that particular area which in this case is missing. The complainant was duly informed about the fate of his claim vide letter dated 09.10.2015 but the complainant in order to put undue influence has filed the present complaint with unclean hands.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavits Annexure RX, Annexure RY and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

4.                It is not disputed that the vehicle in question is insured with Op which met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy in question. The main grouse of the complainant is that the OP has wrongly and illegally repudiated his claim on the ground that the driving license of deceased Harbhajan Singh issued on 16.07.2010 from Nagaland Authority was not genuine and effective at the time of accident, whereas as per circular dated 01.08.2014 of office of Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland stated that “Driving License is issued on Smart Card through the National Software “SARATHI” from 30.10.2009 in the state other than the license issued on booklet. Thus any license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on booklet after 30.10.2009 is not genuine. Therefore, the subject DL do not falls under genuine category. Admittedly, the license of driver of the vehicle was issued on 16.07.2010  for MC, LMV, LTV, HTV only  as is evident through Annexure C4 (copy of license)                

5.                We have also perused Public Information  letter No.TC-23/MV/2007 (PT-1) issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland on 01.08.2014 wherein it was mandatory requirement that driving licensing must be on smart card through the National Software-SARASTHI from 30.10.2009 and any license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on Booklet from after 30.10.2009 is not genuine. This license Annexure C4 in question has been issued on 16.07.2010 after the date mentioned in the circular issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland. It was the primary duty of the complainant to produce either the latest report with validity of the license from concerned office or to produce the license after converting the license prepared on booklet into Smart card. The plea of the complainant that the father of the complainant has died on 18.07.2014, therefore, he could not get the driving license prepared on Smart Card as per notification is not sustainable because the notification was issued on 01.08.2014 and the license was issued on  16.07.2010 which has been declared not valid as it was issued after 30.10.2009.

6.                Keeping in view the above fact and circumstances we have concluded that the Op has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the license of the driver was not genuine. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint deserves dismissal. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 30.01.2018                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

  

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member