The present complaint was filed by the titled complainant against the titled opposite parties upon receipt of the repudiation (Ex.C5) dated 21.04.2021 to his ‘Accident-Repair-Claim’ for Rs.324,998/- pertaining to his accident-ed but comprehensively insured ‘Vehicle’ (bearing RC # PB-35-AG-0629) with cover valid w e from 26.02.2020 to 25.02.2021; on the ground that the driver was not having a valid Driving License at the time of accident. In turn, the insured complainant repeatedly affirmed with the OP that his D.L. had been valid up to the year 2030 as was issued by the Licensing Authority who in turn upon verification had advised that as per records the D.L. was valid up to 2015 only but was inadvertently printed as valid up to 2030 at the time of issuance. Although, it had been none of the faults of the complainant but the OP refused to relent and thus prompted the present complaint.

2.       Sh. Devi Singh, a resident of Pathankot had owned the above Car as was insured comprehensively with the above insurers up to 25.02.2021. On the night of 31.01.2021 the Car got badly damaged in an accident resulting into accident-claim. The insured car owner intimated the OP and completed all the requisites and formalities too, precedent to an accident claim and finally filed the insurance claim with the OP insurer, who appointed its Surveyor and the claim process was initiated. Incidentally, the claim-process progressed smoothly as all requisites were made available and all queries were satisfactorily replied. There has been an overall affirmative assent as to fact-um of accident and terms of the applicable insurance policy. Neither, was there any dissent on ownership of accident-ed vehicle nor upon Driving License with its validity printed up to as 2030 but upon verification was determined up to 2015 by the Licensing Authority.   

3.       The complainant had repeatedly pleaded that the misprint, if any, had been at the OP2 end and it had been none of his faults. In the claim-form, and also to the OP appointed Surveyor, the insured had stated that the Licensing Authority had admitted the misprint on its part. The complainant claims having repeatedly explained (verbally in-person, telephonic-ally and also in-writing) to the OP that the said misprinted year 2030 had made him believe the D.L.'s validity as such and thus he had not got it corrected. However, the OP insurer in its endeavor to reject the claim made it an issue and subsequently repudiated the claim, unceremoniously. The complainant had filed his affidavit in support along with routine papers of the car.

4.       The OP insurers appeared upon summoning through its counsel and filed its written reply pleading its prime objection (along with the routine formals) that the person driving the Car at the time of accident was not holding a valid Driving License D.L. The OP have in support of prosecution of its defense have filed an Affidavit of its Chief Manager Sh. Amian Gupta along with other formals, including the verification reports from the Licensing Authority.        

5.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides, on points of law, and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care and caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We are also inclined to examine the inference it’s ‘scope n spread’ on account of some documents ignored to be produced/ not-produced during the course of proceedings. We observe that the OP insurer denied the impugned Insurance-Claim vide its repudiation letter (Ex.C4) 21.04.2021 for of the one prime reason that the Driving License had been valid up to the year 2015 and not up to the year 2030 as printed over the same by the Licensing Authority. We are of the considered opinion at the face of the evidenced-facts as available on the records that there’s have been no misrepresentation and/ or misstatements of facts on the part of the complainant and the misprint committed at the Licensing Authority's end had been one genuine typographical mistake and that made the insured complainant believe that he had been holding a valid D.L. at the time of the accident and as such the impugned ‘repudiation’ of the insurance-claim, in question, by the OP Insurer had been unwarranted, arbitrary and unfair; neither in accordance with the provisions of the statutory law nor in conformity with the sanctity of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, it has violated with impunity the preferred consumer rights of the insured complainant causing him much physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss.

6.       Lastly, we hold the insurer guilty of statutory misconduct amounting to ‘unfair trade practices/ deficiency in service’ and thus liable to an adverse award under the provisions of the governing statute.         

7.       In the light of the all above, we order the opposite party insurers to pay the impugned claim @ Rs.324,998/- in terms of the Ex.C6 i.e., the Authorized Service Center's Repair Invoice of the accident-ed vehicle with interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim (till paid in full) besides Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as cost cum compensation within 45 days of receipt of the  certified copy of these orders otherwise the so-aggregated amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3 % PA from the date of the orders till realization, in full.

8.         The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

9.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                President.

ANNOUNCED:                                   (R.S.Sukhija)

JUNE 15, 2022.                                          Member.

YP.