Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 195
Instituted on : 10.06.2020
Decided on : 24.08.2023
Ess Gee Trendz Retail Pvt. Ltd. having office at Opposite Bajrang Bhawan Mandir, Delhi Road-Rohtak through its Director and its authorized Signatory, Sunil Girdhar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Jag Mohan Motors, Sonepat Road-Rohtak, through its authorized officer.
- IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, having office at Delhi Road, Rajendera Tower, Rohtak-124001, through its Branch Manager. …….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Hitesh Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Anurag Malik, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing no. HR-12-AE-3048 and the vehicle in question was got comprehensively insured with depreciation waver add on coverage(NIL depreciation policy by making extra payment of Rs.4856/-) from opposite party no. 2 vide policy no. M9683546/11506686 for the period 24.04.2019 to 23.08.2020 for the insured declared value of Rs.6,93,747/-. The vehicle in question was insured from opposite party no. 1 being agent of the opposite party no. 2. On 06.09.2019 the vehicle in question met with an accident and intimation in this regard was given to the opposite party without any delay. The complainant submitted all the documents as demanded by the opposite parties from time to time. On the instructions of opposite party no. 2 authorized Service station of Maruti Private Limited started the repair on cashless basis, but to the surprise of the complainant, the letter dated 17.02.2020 was served on the false and frivolous grounds. Thus the complainant was left with no other alternate to make payment of Rs.4,25,442/- to the repairer of the vehicle and got the possession of the same. It is further submitted that complainant suffered loss on 06.09.2019 and the opposite party repudiated the claim on 17.02.2020 after the span of the more than 6 months. After repudiation of the claim, the complainant again requested to re-consider the genuine claim of the complainant. But on 01.06.2020 the opposite party refused to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. As such, there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.4,25,442/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 06.09.2019 till its realization of the amount, also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no. 1 in its reply submitted that the answering opposite party has unnecessarily been impleaded as party in this complaint. The opposite party No.1 repaired the vehicle of the complainant but the opposite party no. 2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Opposite party no. 2 in its reply submitted that on receipt of intimation on 07.09.2019 about the damage of the insured vehicle, while it was being driven by Pardeep Singh, the claim was duly entertained and the opposite party appointed Sh. K.P.S.Chauhan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor duly licenced by the IRDA. Driving License of the driver found fake, record not available in the RTO Patiala as per the verification report. After legal process of the claim insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that as per the licensing authority/RTA, Patiala, they have not issued driving license PB-1120130017419 in the name of the Pardeep Singh son of Amar Singh and record not found. As per the general exception no. 3(b)/driver clause given in the schedule of the policy which defines the driver as any person including insured provided that the person holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident. Company shall not be liable for any accidental loss/damage while the insured vehicle is being driven by any person other than a driver as stated in the driver clause. Company has rightly held that claim is not tenable and does not fall under the purview of the policy and information to this effect was given to the insured vide registered AD letter dated 17.02.2020. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.01.2022. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and closed his evidence on 27.10.2022. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-2/A and documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and also tendered documents Ex.R6 & Ex.R7 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on 27.10.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by opposite No.2 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its Ex.R5 on the ground that “we verified from the licensing authority/RTA, Patiala, they have not issued driving license PB-1120130017419 in the name of the Mr. Pardeep Singh son of Amar Singh and record not found”. But this document has not been supported by the affidavit of the surveyor. The surveyor has not assessed the claim. He allegedly verified the license and recommended the claim as no claim on the ground that driving license of Mr. Pardeep Singh is found fake. So no assessment has been made by the surveyor. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited by ld. counsel for the complainant of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No.4919 of 2022 decided on 26.07.2022 titled as Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., whereby Hon’ble Supreme court has held that : “The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver.” In Civil appeal nos. 1999-2000 of 2020 in case titled as Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: :The driving license was purported to have been issued by the licensing authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi, however the same could not be verified as the concerned officer of the licensing authority deposed that the record of the license was not available with them. It is not the contention of the Insurance company that the Appellant/complainant is guilty of willful negligence while employing the driver. The driver had been driving competently and there was no reason for the Appellant/complainant to doubt the veracity of the driver’s license.” Hence in view of the law cited above, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the repudiation of claim on the ground of fake D.L is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such complainant is entitled for the compensation. As the surveyor has not assessed the loss, but it is admitted by the opposite party no.1 in its reply and affidavit that they have repaired the car of the complainant. We have also observed the receipt Ex.C5, as per which complainant had paid an amount of Rs.420000/- on account of repair charges. Hence we have no other option to believe the pleadings of the complainant that he spent an amount of Rs.420000/- on the repair of his vehicle.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.420000/-(Rupees four lac twenty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.10.06.2020 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.08.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
