Haryana

StateCommission

A/5/2016

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMLESH RANI - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.SIDHU

24 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      05 of 2016

Date of Institution:     04.01.2016

Date of Decision :     24.05.2016

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Gagan Building, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager, through the authorised signatory of The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Mrs. Kamlesh Rani w/o Sh. Om Parkash Arora, Resident of House No.67, Bank Colony, Railway Road, Karnal.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated November 6^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.484 of 2013.

2.      Kamlesh Rani-complainant/respondent, got her car (Maruti Ritz) bearing Engine No.D13A1882382, Chassis No.MA3FDBIS00396880, insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, covering the period July 6^th, 2012 to July 5^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1, for Rs.5,31,250/-. On November 13^th, 2012 Kapil Arora-son of the respondent/complainant, who was having the learner’s driving licence, accompanied by Sandeep Kumar who was holding a valid and effective driving licence and one Rajat, while travelling in the above said car in the area of Karnal, met with an accident in which car was damaged. Kapil Arora suffered fatal injuries and died. D.D.R. Exhibit C-3 was lodged in Police Station Karnal (Sadar).  The surveyor of the Insurance Company vide report (Annexure A-2) assessed the damage of the car at Rs.5,15,000/- on total loss basis. Claim for damage of the car being lodged was repudiated stating that Kapil Arora though was holding learner’s driving licence and was not accompanied by any other person, who was holding a valid and effective driving licence and that presence of Sandeep Kumar, who was holding a licence to be travelling with Kapil Arora, was a manipulated affair. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act was filed.

3.      The Insurance Company/opposite party contested complaint by filing reply wherein it reiterated the fact stated in the repudiation letter, mentioned above, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as under:-

“…we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.5,15,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.12.2013 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to her and for litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

5.      Indisputably, the car was damaged in the accident and the surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.5,15,000/-. While assailing the order of the District Forum, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has drawn our attention towards Rule 3 (1)(b) of Central Motor Vehicles  Rules, 1988, wherein it has been mentioned that a person holding a learner’s driving licence, while driving the vehicle, must be accompanied by another person holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. It was contended that Sandeep Kumar who was stated to be accompanying the deceased Kapil Arora, in fact was not accompanying. In support, reference was made to the supplementary statement of Sandeep Kumar recorded on 09.03.2013 to contend that Sandeep had got recorded to the investigator that his earlier statements recorded by the police and the surveyor were incorrect and that he was not accompanying the deceased Kapil Arora.  

6.      It is not in dispute that Kapil Arora-deceased was holding a learner’s driving licence (Exhibit C-10). A perusal of Exhibit C-10 shows that as a learner, he was permitted to drive vehicle under the category of Motor cycle with gear and Light Motor Vehicle (non transport).

7.      DDR Exhibit C-2 was registered with the Police in Police Station Sadar Karnal and the Police during investigation had also found that Sandeep Kumar was accompanying Kapil Arora-deceased. The Police also recorded statement of Sandeep Kumar that at the time of accident, he was accompanying Kapil Arora. Copy of statement of Sandeep, recorded by the Police is on the file. The surveyor also recorded his statement. The Insurance Company appointed S.V. Associates as Investigator, who recorded supplementary statement of Sandeep Kumar, wherein Sandeep Kumar was stated to have got recorded that his earlier statements recorded by Police and Surveyor were incorrect. Moreover, it is only in addendum report when the Investigator of Insurance Company referred to supplementary statement of Sandeep Kumar. All this appears to be malafide just to deny claim. What necessitated the Investigator to submit addendum report and record supplementary statement of Sandeep Kumar, raises doubt about the version of the Insurance Company.  That besides once the statement of a person has been recorded twice i.e. once by the Police and second time by the surveyor, recording of his supplementary statement just to deny the claim by trying to retract from the earlier statement and without any justification, also raises doubt about the version of Insurance Company. Not only that even vide Exhibit C-11, respectables of the locality have also testified that Sandeep Kumar was accompanying Kapil Arora-deceased at the time of accident. This statement was recorded by the Police during the course of investigation. Sandeep Kumar also filed affidavit before District Forum testifying his presence in the vehicle and accompanying Kapil Arora. He was not cross-examined by the Insurance Company to confront with supplementary statement alleged to have been recorded by Investigator. Moreover, S.S. Bajaj, Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, in his affidavit Exhibit DW2/B has not stated that he recorded statement of Sandeep Kumar.

8.      In view of the above overwhelming evidence regarding the presence of Sandeep Kumar in the vehicle and instructing the learner’s driving licence holder while driving the vehicle, is well established. His statement that his earlier statements are false, cannot be considered sufficient to disallow the claim. Thus, no case for interference is made out. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.

9.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 24.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL