Haryana

Ambala

CC/216/2016

Harwinder Pal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Oriental Inss Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar

29 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No. 216 of 2016.

                                                        Date of instt:  18.05.2016.

                                                        Date of decision: 29.12.2017.

 

Harwinder Pal Kaur w/o Sh.Gurpreet Singh, r/o 1071, Sector 9, Ambala City.

                                        ...Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Oriental Insurance Company through its Branch Manager, LIC Building, Ambala City.
2. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002.

                                                                        …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                 SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                  

Present: -  Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. R.K.Vig, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant got his vehicle Ford Fista bearing registration No.HR-01-U-5996 insured with OPs vide policy No.261101/31/2014/3983 having validity from 25.09.2014 to 25.09.2015. The above said vehicle met with an accident on 06.07.2015 near Kusht Ashram Ambala Cantt. and regarding this an FIR No.169 was also lodged with P.S.Parao. Intimation regarding the accident was given to OP No.1 besides submitting requisite documents, therefore, the surveyor appointed by it assessed the loss and directed the complainant to give the consent about the salvage being total damage of vehicle. The complainant requested the OPs to settle the by writing a letter and also made representation but when the claim was not settled then he got served legal notice upon the Ops.  The OPs illegally and wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground that the it is not clear who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CY and Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.             Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the author of FIR was one Sh.Inderjit Singh Walia and as per FIR the occurrence /accident took place around 5.40 p.m. on GT Road near Kushth Ashram which involved Canter Leyland No.PB-32-P-0108 (driven by unknown person) and car No.HR-01-U-5996 Ford driven by one Gurvinder Singh @ Sunny Ahulawalia and Dipankar, Ridhima, Harsikha and Anushikha were seated in the car. In the accident persons seated in the car alongwith driver sustained fatal injuries resulting in death of persons but the author of FIR in his supplementary statement recorded on the same day i.e. 06.07.2015 stated that the car was being driven by Dipankar. It was investigated by the insurance company and found that the grandson of the author of FIR was not having driving licence and only Dipankar was having driving license. The author of the car in connivance with local police managed to get statements of other persons that the car was being driven by Dipankar. Since the car was being driven by a person who was not having driving license, therefore, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 13.04.2016.  The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,02,000/- on the basis of physical verification of the vehicle.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R12.

3.                     We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                     After going through the material available on the case file, it is clear that the damage to the vehicle has occurred during the subsistence of the policy. The OPs have mainly stressed on the ground that as per FIR No.169 dated 06.07.015 registered by Inderjeet  Singh regarding accident the vehicle was being driven by his grandson namely Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny,  who was not having any driving license and lateron he has changed the version that Dipankar was also driving the vehicle in his statement recorded by the police that Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny was not driving the vehicle. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and as per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C produced before this Forum during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the Ops said Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny was driving the vehicle and the police has not given any findings that said Dipenkar/Dipanshu was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Even then in the statement of father of Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny recorded  in MACT Case filed at Ambala (titled as Honey Preet Ahluwalia Vs. Rohit Kumar etc.decided on 16.09.2017) filed by LRs of the deceased Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny and father of Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny (PW1) and in cross-examination he has given the statement that he cannot tell the DL number and issuing authority and he even did not have the photo copy of the DL of his son Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny. This statement shows that said Gurwinder Pal @ Sunny was not having driving license and even then on the case file DL of Dipanker has also not been placed on file by the complainant which is clearly violation of rules and regulations of Motor Vehicle Act and terms and conditions of the policy also. Hence, the Ops have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter (Annexure C6) dated 13.04.2016 on the ground that there are two version has been given by the complainant because on one hand he had stated that Gurwinder Pal Singh @ Sunny was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and on the other hand he had made the statement that Dipankar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  Hence, the version of the complainant as well as author of FIR is not believable.

6.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence that the OPs have repudiated his claim wrongly and illegally. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 29.12.2017                                 

                                                                                 

                            

                        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           (D.N. ARORA)

                                 MEMBER                           PRESIDENT