DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 274
Instituted on: 10.06.2019
Decided on: 20.02.2024
Makhan Singh son of Dev Singh resident of Mirja Patti, Namole, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Iffco Sadan C-1 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Manager.
3. Vashish Finance Company Regd. Agar Sain Chowk, Sunam through its Prop. Ashok Kumar Sharma.
….Opposite parties
QUORUM
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT
KANWALJEET SINGH : MEMBER
For the complainant : Shri A.S.Dullat Advocate
For the OPs No.1&2 : Shri Bhushan Garg, Advocate
For the OP No.3 : Shri J.S.Jawandha, Advocate
ORDER
KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
1. The complainant has alleged in this complaint that he purchased TVS Apachee RTR 180 Motorcycle and financed from OP no.3. The OPs no.1 and 2 insured the motorcycle vide cover note no.69658887 dated 22.10.2016. The OPs insured the sum insured of the vehicle for Rs.70,000/-. On 01.09.2017, the vehicle was met with an accident with unknown car. The complainant also suffered injuries and informed to the OPs regarding the accident of the vehicle and lodged the claim alongwith relevant documents. On 19.03.2018 OPs issued a letter and demanded some documents which was sent by the complainant except DDR/FIR. The OP no.3 issued estimate certificate of the damaged vehicle for a sum of Rs.58100/-. The OPs committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has lastly prayed that the Ops may kindly directed to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest of the damaged vehicle till realization and to pay Rs. 20000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version separately. In reply of OPs no.1 and 2, taking legal objections that the present complaint is premature. Three persons were traveling on the insured motorcycle and driving the same in violation of the policy conditions and against the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. The complainant has not produced the injury detail and medical document and the copy of DDR to the OPs no.1 and 2. As per claim form the person who was driving the insured vehicle did not sustain any injury, whereas the riders have sustained injuries which is highly improbable. It creates doubt that the name of the driver of the insured vehicle has been wrongly declared by the insured just to get the compensation. The vehicle driven by the driver who does not have any driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. During investigation it has found that the complainant has compromised the matter with the owner of the offending vehicle and received Rs.30000/- from the owner of the offending vehicle on account of repair charges of the insured vehicle and a Panchayatinama was reduced into writing. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The vehicle is financed from Shri Ram City Union Financed Limited who is also necessary party in this complaint. On merits, it is correct that the complainant got his motorcycle insured from the OPs no.1 and 2 by declaring the IDV of the vehicle as Rs.70,000/-. The policy was valid from 22.10.2016 to 21.10.2017 subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The OPs received intimation of loss on 2.9.2017 and immediately OPs appointed surveyor who visited on 4.9.2017 and prepared and submitted his report dated 16.02.2018 and assessed the loss of Rs.32499.99 minus Rs.30,000/- received by the complainant from the owner of offending vehicle and then the claim case may be passed for Rs.2499.99. The insured vehicle was being driven in the public place in violation of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. Three persons were traveling of the insured vehicle at the time of alleged accident. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OPs. The remaining allegations are denied by the Ops and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.
3. In reply, OP no.3 pleaded that the complainant purchased the motorcycle from Sharma Automobile Aggarsain Chowk, Sunam and was financed with the OP no.3. The remaining allegations are denied by the Op no.3 and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and affidavit Ex.C-6 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties no.1&2 has tendered in their evidence some documents i.e Ex.Op1&2/1 to Ex.Op1&2/6 and self attested affidavit Ex.Op1&2/7 and closed evidence. Similarly, the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and Ex.OP3/2 copy of bill and closed evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.
7. Now, come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
8. It is not disputed that the complainant got his motorcycle insured from the OPs no.1 and 2. It is admitted fact that the policy was valid from 22.10.2016 to 21.10.2017. As per Ex.OPs1&2/3 the insured declared value mentioned as Rs.70,000/- . As per pleadings of para no.3 an accident occurred on 1.9.2017 of the vehicle in question with an unknown car. It is admitted by OPs no.1 and 2 in reply on merit para no.3 that the intimation of loss of the vehicle received on 02.09.2017 by the OPs. Ex.C-1 is policy schedule. As per Ex.C-2 the estimate dated 4.9.2017 the value of the damaged vehicle was assessed a sum of Rs.58100/- . Ex.C-3 is a certificate of registration of the vehicle which is valid upto 25.04.2032 in the name of complainant. Ex.C-4 is a driving licence of the complainant which is valid till 09.06.2025. Ex.C-5 and Ex.OP 1&2/5 are the same document dated 19.03.2018 demanded required documents by OPs from complainant to settle the claim. To prove his case the complainant tendered into his affidavit on oath which is Ex.C-6.
9. Per contra, it transpires from the perusal of Ex.OP1&2/1 Motor Claim form page no.2 described the detail of driver name as “ Pandi Singh” . Driving licence which is Ex.C-4 stated the name of complainant. From this angel, the stand of the complainant is in itself contradictory. It is writ large on the file that the complainant neither specifically pleaded in his complaint nor produced by cogent evidence regarding who is driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As per Ex.OP1&2/4, Motor Final Survey report page no. 2 mentioned that the net payable amount of Rs.32499.99 . We feel that the complainant has not lodged any police report regarding the occurrence of accident. However, no medical record produced by the complainant in his evidence regarding who sustained injury. No bill of repair of the vehicle produced by complainant on record. As per Ex.OP1&2/1 Motor Claim form on page no.2 it is mentioned Makhan Singh and Raman sustained minor injury but Pandi Singh who is driver of the vehicle did not sustain any injury. It is incumbent upon the complainant to prove his case by way of cogent and truth worthy evidence. The person who seeks equity must do equity. As per Ex.OP1&2/4 survey report page no.9 mentioned the person sitting behind the motorcycle got injuries. This Commission has the considered view that the story of the complainant creates suspicion. To trace out the veracity of truth, this Commission has considered the main issue for determination “ whether the three persons are legally entitled to carry on two wheeled motorcycle or not ?
To solve this controversy this commission has gone through Section 128 of motor vehicle Act which is reproduced as under:-
(1) No driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor cycle behind the drivers seat with appropriate safety measures.
In the present case in hand, it is not disputed that at time of occurrence of accident of the motorcycle there were three persons riding on the motorcycle. It transpires from the Ex.OPs1&2/1 Motor Claim form each and every page signed by the complainant in Punjabi language. From the perusal of claim form on page no.2 it is crystally clear that Pandi Singh, Makhan Singh and Raman were three persons riding on the motorcycle at the time of occurrence of accident. “ A man can lie, but document can’t”.
10. This Commission has no hesitation to hold that three pillion riders were riding the motorcycle which may be cause inbalance of the motorcycle and due to this reason an accident occurred. It is writ large on the file, the motorcycle was being driven in violation of the Section 128 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In this juncture, the complainant is not liable for any relief. Resultantly, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint in hand and with careful analysis of the evidence available on record we dismiss the present complaint.
11. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
12. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
Announced.
February20, 2024
( Kanwaljeet Singh) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member President
BBS/-
