Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/178/2024

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHD. ZAHID KHAN - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHNA KANT

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH  (Additional Bench)

 

Appeal No.	:	178  of 2024
Date of Institution	:	01.05.2024
Date of Decision	:	23.10.2024

 

1.       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (Registered Office) A-25/27, Asraf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.

 

2.       The Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Surendra Building, SCO No. 109-110-111, Sector-17D, Chandigarh.

          Now both through their authorized signatory, Satpal Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal), The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No. 109-110-111, Sector 17D, Chandigarh.

         

                                                                                ... Appellants/Opposite Parties

                                                 V e r s u s

 

          Mohd. Zahid Khan S/o Mohd. Muslim Khan, R/o H.No. 9/1, Sector 41 A,, Chandigarh.

 

         …Respondent/Complainant

                                           

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:     Sh. Krishna Kant, Advocate for appellants.

                       Sh. R.S. Duggal, Advocate for Respondent.

 

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.03.2024, rendered   by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh  (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. 70 of 2023 in the following terms;

“11.   In view of the above discussion the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.2,35,450/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of repudiation i.e. 25.05.2021 till onwards.

 

2. to pay Rs. 25000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

 

3. to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.       This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No, (i)  & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No. (iii) above.”

2.           For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.
3.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that he got his car Tata Indigo-C5.LS insured from OPs valid w.e.f. from 31.05.2019 to 30.05.2020. The value of the car was assessed as
   Rs.3,52,000/- at the time of insurance. On 13.03.2020,  the car in question was burnt due to some mechanical fault occurred in the engine at 2:17 hrs from some distance of H/M Light Point, Hallomajra, Chandigarh and the vehicle turned into useless skeleton. A DDR dated 13.03.2020 was lodged with Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh and intimation was also given to fire station Ram Darbar, Chandigarh on the same day. Thereafter, fire occurrence report was also obtained from Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the OPs as per their advice. The OPs also got furnished two affidavits in different dates i.e. 29.06.2020 and 20.10.2020. In first affidavit, insurance claim was agreed with the right of retention of salvage/rack, instead to pay the insured amount i.e. Rs.3,52,450/- and other one affidavit with General Information regarding the vehicle, insurance, place of occurrence of incident, driving license of driver, lodging of DDR etc. However, the OPs vide letter dated 10.11.2020 intimated that the claim will be processed as per terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of report of LA, Rewari. The OPs did not pay the claim of the complainant & as such he issued legal notice to the OPs,  but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
4. In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, the OPs pleaded that the complaint was barred by time as the same has been filed beyond the stipulated period of 2 years and was not maintainable. It was pleaded that the complainant intimated the loss to the OPs on 14.03.2020 and on the basis of the intimation OPs deputed an IRDA Licensed Surveyor (Er. Sunil Kumar) to conduct the spot survey. The spot survey was conducted on 14.03.2020 and the report was submitted on 25.05.2020. Thereafter, the OPs appointed as IRDA Licensed Surveyor Er. Rajesh Kumar to conduct the final survey and he submitted the final survey report dated 01.07.2020. The surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 3,35,450/- on Net of Salvage  Basis and the complainant agreed to settle the claim and accepted the amount of Rs.2,35,450/-It was admitted that the OPs deputed Sh. Jagjit Singh Sethi to conduct the investigation in the incident of fire and to obtain the necessary documents in support of the claim from the complainant. The investigator sent letters dated 07.10.2020 and 21.10.2020 requesting the complainant to submit the requisite documents and information. Thereafter, the complainant provided the requisite documents and information regarding the incident and the statement of the driver (Prem Kumar). The investigator submitted his report to the OPs  and concluded that the driving license of driver Prem Kumar which was claimed to be issued by Licensing Authority Rewari, has been found fake and the same has been stated by Prem Kumar in his statement. Thereafter, the complainant submitted another driving licence of the driver issued by Chandigarh Licensing Authority. The investigator approached the Chandigarh Licensing Authority to verify the driving license and he received the confirmation from the RLA Chandigarh stated that the “DL No. not correct” and thus it was concluded that the second DL submitted by the complainant was also fake. The OPs granted opportunity to the complainant vie letters dated 27.01.2021 and 26.03.2021 to substantiate his claim with regard to the genuineness of the driving license of Prem Kumar i.e. driver of insured vehicle on the date of accident. The complainant failed to respond to the above said letters. On receiving no response from the complainant the OPs were compelled to repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver Prem Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Denying all other allegation and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Consumer Complaint of the complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.
6.  Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ OPs.
7. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.
8. The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it.
9.  After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. It is observed that the claim has been repudiated arbitrarily and illegally by the Insurance Company, in view of the fake licence of the driver, but it is made clear from the record that the vehicle in question was not damaged due to any negligent driving of the driver but apparently and admittedly the same was burnt due to mechanical fault in the engine of the vehicle in question. The Learned District Commission was of the considered view that even if the licence of the driver was fake, the Insurance Company would remain liable unless is proved that the owner of the vehicle was aware or noticed that the license was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle. Accordingly, the repudiation by the Insurance Company was considered to be deficiency in service and the Learned District Commission allowed the complaint partly by ordering the Insurance Company to make the payments as discussed above. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the Learned District Commission-I is upheld.
11.  Keeping in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission, partly allowing the consumer Complaint ordering refund of the amount along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses, is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality and do not need interference of this Commission.  Resultantly, the appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.
12. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the District Commission be sent back immediately.

Pronounced

23^th Oct. 2024

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/- [PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

‘Tanvi’