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
- Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Manager.
- Tri City Autos, Zirakpur-Patiala Road, near AKM Resort, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager.
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd, SCO No. 804, Manimajra (Chandigarh) through its Senior Divisional Manger.
- 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