Punjab

SAS Nagar Mohali

CC/414/2016

Jai Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SCO 43, Phase 2, Mohali
 
Complaint Case No. CC/414/2016
( Date of Filing : 08 Jul 2016 )
 
1. Jai Pal
S/o Khushi Ram, R/o Village Kura Wala tehsil Dera Bassi, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd.
1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Manager.
2. Tri City Autos
Zirakpur-Patiala Road, Near AKM Resort, Zirakpur SAS nagar Mohali through its Manager.
3. the New India Assurance Company Ltd.
SCO 804, Manimajra through its Senior Divisional Manager.
4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
1215, 12th Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Senior Manager.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sanjiv Dutt Sharma PRESIDENT
  Gagandeep Gosal MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
None for the complainant
......for the Complainant
 
OP No.1 ex-parte
None for OP No.2.
Sh.J.P. Nahar, cl for OP Nos. 3 and 4
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 01 Dec 2021
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.414 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  08.07.2016                                                      Date of decision   :  01.12.2021

 


Jaipal S/o Sh. Khushi Ram aged about 51 years, R/o Village Kura Wala, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

 

 

  1. Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its  Manager.

 

  1. Tri City Autos, Zirakpur-Patiala Road, near AKM Resort, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager.

 

  1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, SCO No. 804, Manimajra (Chandigarh) through its Senior Divisional Manger.

 

  1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, 1215, 12th Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Senior Manager.

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member

 

                                                 

Present:    None for the complainant

              OP No.1 ex-parte

              None for OP No.2.

              Sh.J.P. Nahar, cl for OP Nos. 3 and 4

 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

 

 

Order

               The present complaint is filed under the Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short), on the ground that CC owns  a Maruti Alto 800 LXI having registration no. PB-65T-5578 which was insured by OP Nos. 1 and 2 vide policy no. 31260031150303269068 dated 29.10.2015 on payment of premium to the tune of Rs. 6254/-. On 07.02.2016 while coming to Dera Bassi, the car of the CC got hit by a truck bearing No. HR-68-A-3023 and got damaged. Accordingly, the OPs appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,45,000/- . It is alleged that despite submission of requisite documents, the OPs rejected the claim of the CC on the ground that license of the CC is fake. It is alleged that the CC even approached the DTO, Patiala who  gave his  report date 11.04.2016  and certified that the license of the CC is valid upto 13.04.2021, having no. 7527/P/1996 and  due to some mistake the entry was not made in his record and has now been entered in the record of the licensing authority.

                  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the following reliefs:

1. OP be directed to pay Rs. 1,45,000/- as assessed by the Surveyor.

2.To pay  Rs. 2,00,000/-  as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation

2.     Though OP No.1 is ex-parte, but it has filed the reply wherein it is mentioned that MIBPL has neither taken any amount/premium/money for issuing  the insurance policy nor has issued any insurance policy to the CC and as such the CC cannot claim any relief against OP No.1.      

3.         In reply, OP No.2 has raised various preliminary objections on the ground that the vehicle was fully repaired on cashless facility. However, OP No.2   has taken the money from the CC and the same has been credited in the account of OP No.2 .OP No.2 has further stated in its reply that OP No.3 is not satisfied with the license of the CC and the main controversy is between the CC and OP No.3.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.      In reply, OP No.3 and 4  have raised various preliminary  objections, but their main objection  is regarding driving license No. 7527/P/96 which was valid from 04.06.1996 to 13.04.2021. It is alleged that the CC has also submitted another license bearing No.PB-1119960248913, which is allegedly valid from 04.06.1996 to 03.06.2016. OP Nos. 3 and 4 has termed both the licenses as fake. Even the loss assessed by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs. 1,45,000/-  is also not admitted by the OP Nos. 3 and 4. It is alleged that the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs. 1,14,132/- vide its report dated 05.04.2016, but did not recommend for payment  as driving license bearing no. 7527/P/96 was found to be in the name of Mukesh  Mihas and the same is not in the name of the complainant Jai Pal. No entry  of this license was found in any record. It is alleged that report procured from DTO, Patiala appears to be false. OP Nos. 3 and 4 have verified the veracity of another driving license through the website SARTHI maintained by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, where no such record of the license was found. By terming both the licenses as fake, OP Nos. 3 and 4 have claimed that they have rightly rejected the claim of the CC.    Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, OP No.3 and 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     The CC, in support of his complaint has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex CW1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 and C-17. On the other hand, OP No.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sidharth Garg as OP2/1. OP No.3 and 4 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Surinder Pal Sharma, Divisional Manager  of the OPs Ex OP3/1 and affidavit of Sh. S.P. Goyal, Surveyor and loss Assessors Ex OP3/2 and documents Ex OP/1 to Ex OP/4.

6.     We have heard Ld.counsel for OP Nos. 3 ad 4 and have gone through the record minutely.

7.      Admittedly,    the CC has subscribed the policy of OP Nos. 3 and 4 for his car bearing registration no. PB-65T5578  which is also registered in the name of CC. CC in support of his complaint has tendered in evidence  his driving license Ex C-3 which is in his name bearing no. PB-1119960248913. Further the CC has relied upon the report of DTO, Patiala Ex C-5, wherein it is clearly mentioned that driving license no. 7527/P/1996 was issued on 04.06.1996 and is in the name of CC and the license was valid upto 13.04.2021. It is pertinent to mention here that   the report of the DTO, Patiala appears to be genuine . The DTO has specifically stated  in his report that the license of the CC was valid and genuine. Surprisingly there is no evidence brought on record by the OP No.3 and 4 that in what manner the report of DTO, Patiala can be termed to be procured one.  The DTO, Patiala is a senior officer of the Govt. of Punjab and his report cannot be brushed  aside in the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of the  OP No.3 and 4. It is important to mention here that the license submitted by the CC is in his name against which the DTO, Patiala has  given a detailed report that the same is genuine. As far as the other license is concerned, the same is not in the name of the CC. It is not cleared by OP Nos. 3 and 4,  from where  the second license which is not in the name of the CC, has come into picture. It is proved on the file that the CC  has only one driving license  bearing No. 7527/P/1996 in favour of  which the DTO, Patiala  has also giving his report. It is nowhere proved that the CC was holding two driving licenses.  There is no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  We feel, that OP Nos. 3 and 4 have wrongly rejected the claim of the CC as assessed by the Surveyor.

8.       In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP Nos. 3 and 4 only and they   are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- to the CC  as assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 12 % P.A from the date of filing of the complaint. OP Nos. 3 and 4 are  further  directed to pay a consolidated compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the CC for mental agony and physical harassment. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of remaining OPs and complaint against them is dismissed . Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties.   File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

December 01,2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

 

                                                       I agree.

 

 

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sanjiv Dutt Sharma]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Gagandeep Gosal]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.