CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.456/2005
SH. KISHAN CHAUDHARY
S/O SH. DALAL SINGH,
R/O WZ-161, VILLAGE DASGHARA,
P.O. PUSA, NEW DELHI-110012
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, HEMKUNT TOWER,
89, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 29.07.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
It is not in dispute that complainant’s goods carrier commercial vehicle, Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No.HR-55A 6503 insured with OP for the period 13.07.2003 to 12.07.2004 with IDV of Rs.3,52,000/- inter alia in respect of accidental damage to the vehicle. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 27.07.2003 and was badly damaged and for that an FIR No.452/03 u/s 279/337/304A IPC was lodged at P.S. Kotputli, Rajastahan. It is not in dispute that the information of accident was provided to OP and thereafter complainant submitted claim form in which the particulars of the driving licence No.61124/E/03 of driver Pappu Singh were detailed. On the receipt information regarding the loss, OP appointed surveyor who submitted his report dated 04.8.2003 surveyor has reported that the driving licence No.61124/E/03 was only in respect of LMV(non-transport). OP appointed another surveyor for assessing the damages who submitted his final survey report assessing the loss at Rs.1,45,027.55 as against a sum of Rs.2,41,530.12 submitted by the complainant. The vehicle was got repaired by the complainant. The surveyor re-inspected the vehicle and submitted report that apart from the parts recommended for replacement, the complainant has carried out additional replacement of parts for which no supplementary estimates were submitted by him at the time of survey hence the same were not covered.
It is further stated by OP that since the driving license of Pappu Singh was in respect of LMV without any endorsement thereon to drive transport vehicle, the OP was therefore in the process of repudiating its liability when he received a letter dated 23.9.03 from the complainant stating therein that the driver by mistake has given LMV licence whereas he was holding licence for HTV. That licence was got verified and it was found that the same was issued after the date of accident. It was found that the same was renewed by the licensing authority Bulandshahr on 09.09.2003 on the basis of previous licence bearing No.879/MTR dated 22.02.1998 allegedly issued by licensing authority, Mathura. So on the day of accident the driver was not holding a valid licence. While the OP was in the process of verifying the alleged licence bearing No.879/1998 dated 22.2.98 purportedly issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura when the complainant knowing well that the same expired long before accident, vide letter dated 16.4.04 enclosed still another licence bearing No.V-1236/MTR/99 dated 31.12.99.
It is further stated that OP got the said licence verified from the Licensing Authority, Mathura through investigator who enclosed a certificate issued by Licensing Authority, Mathura to the effect that driver earlier had licence for motorcycle and LMV from 31.12.99 which was endorsed for HTV on 30.5.02 and renewed for the period 30.5.02 to 29.5.05.
It is further stated that OP vide letter dated 16.10.04 sought explanation from the complainant as to why the driver was holding three difference licences to which complainant submitted his reply dated 02.12.04 wherein it is stated that he was not knowing about the whereabouts of driver and that so long as a valid driving licence was furnished, earlier submission of fake driver licenses was of no consequence.
It is further stated in the reply by OP that it has reasons to believe that the driving licence No.V-1236/MTR/99 was fabricated by the complainant in collusion with the officials of Licensing Authority, Mathura.
It is further stated that the representative of the owner of the goods at the time of the accident filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur claiming compensation and the Ld. Judge MACT, Jaipur vide judgment dated 21.10.05 held that the driving licence held by the driver i.e. driving licence No.61124/E/03 was not valid at the time of accident hence insurance company was not liable to pay the amount rather the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the compensation.
We have heard complainant and carefully perused the record.
It is significant to note that so far as the MACT case is concerned, it is not the case of OP that it was brought to the notice of Ld. Judge, MACT, Jaipur that in fact the driver was holding driving licence No.V-1236/MTR/99 and the same valid at the of accident. Hence the plea taken by OP regarding the finding of the aforesaid judgment is of no consideration. So far as these proceedings are concerned, it is significant to note that when the complainant was asked to explain about the number of driving licences held by the driver, it is stated that the complainant gave a detailed reply wherein he has categorically stated that he is not liable for the action of the driver. It is not for the complainant to find out as to how many driving licences the driver was having or from where he has procured the driving licences. The fact remains that the driving licence No.V-1236/MTR/99 dated 31.12.99 was found to be valid even as per the report given by the surveyor. The surveyor has submitted certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura which specifically states that the licence was issued from 31.12.99 and vide endorsement dated 30.5.2002 driver was permitted to drive HTV and the license was renewed from 30.5.2002 to 29.5.05.
The plea of OP that it has reason to believe that the licence was fabricated was fabricated by the complainant in collusion with the officials of Licensing Authority, Mathura is without basis. Insurance company has not placed anything on the record to show that the licence was fabricated. Once a certificate has been issued by the appropriate transport authority saying that the licence was valid at the time of accident, the insurance company cannot take a plea that the same was fabricated by the complainant in collusion with the officials of Licensing Authority, Mathura. Hence it is proved that at the time of accident, the driver was having a valid driving licence. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.1,45,027/-. Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to M/s Praveen Workshop on 27.7.03 for putting the damaged vehicle on the side of the road. Complainant has paid another Rs.7,000/- for towing the damaged vehicle to workshop in Delhi and also paid a professional fee of Rs.1,665/- to the surveyor. He has placed on record the receipt in this regard.
OP is directed to refund Rs.1,54,692/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
