STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.    The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Managing Director, having its Regd. and Head office at A-25/27, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi.

2.     Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., having its Office SCO No.99-100, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

        Now both through their authorized signatory, Alka Bansal, Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Sector-17-D, Chandigarh.

                                                                ……Appellants

V e r s u s

M/s Prerna Strips through its Proprietor Shri N.K. Gupta, having its office at SCO No.216, Sector 29-D, Chandigarh.

                                                            …….Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 3.04.2018 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint   No. 163/2016.

BEFORE:           JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:   Mr.J.P.Nahar,  advocate for the appellants.

                    Mr.Dheeraj Sharma,Manager of the respondent.  

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed this appeal against order dated 3.4.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), allowing a complaint filed by the  respondent/complainant. .   

2.         It is not in dispute that the vehicle owned by the respondent/complainant was insured between 9.10.2014 to 8.10.2015 against the Insurance Policy issued by the appellants/OPs. Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was shown as Rs.10,50,000/-. The OPs had charged premium of Rs.21,929/- against that Policy. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.4.2015 in which its driver Sh.Baldev Singh got burnt and died.  FIR was recorded on that very date showing the factum of accident. It was a case of total loss of the vehicle in question. Intimation was given to the OPs. A surveyor was appointed, however, till such time complaint was filed on 10.3.2016, the OPs have failed to process the claim qua the loss caused to the insured vehicle of the complainant. 

3.              Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs. The factual position was not controverted. It was admitted that on getting information of the accident, a surveyor was appointed, who recommended payment of an amount of Rs.7,73,500/-  to the complainant less salvage value of the wreckage.  It was further said that the claim could not be processed as the complainant failed to submit the requisite documents.   

4.          By filing rejoinder, the complainant controverted  the  averments made by the OPs and reiterated its case as found mentioned in its complaint.  

              Both the parties led evidence. The  Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, partly allowed the complaint on 3.4.2018 by granting following relief in favour of the complainant  ; 

1. To pay the amount of Rs.7,73,500/-, as assessed by the surveyor in his report, to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of report i.e. 5.1.2016 till realization.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation     for deficiency in service and harassment caused;
3.  To pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- as costs of                       litigation.

The awarded amount was ordered to be paid within a fixed period, failing which it was to entail penal interest.

5.              It is admitted on record that till passing of the impugned order partly allowing the complaint filed by the complainant, on 3.4.2018, the OPs have not taken any decision qua the claim filed by the complainant. The above fact was adversely noted by the Forum and rightly said that if there was any difficulty which was being pressed in the written statement to deny/reject the claim of the complainant, it should have been done so by passing an appropriate order within a reasonable time. It is on record that a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss.  It was recommended by the surveyor that the amount be paid after getting Registration Certificate of the vehicle cancelled from the concerned authority.

 6.            The objection raised by the OPs that the vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate was  rejected  by the Forum by giving valid reasons in para-9 of its impugned order. Contention of the OPs that  driving licence of the driver was fake was also correctly rejected by observing as under ;

“The next attack of the learned counsel for the OPs is that the driving licence was fake one.  The OPs have not repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was no valid driving licence.  The OPs are making and taking paradoxical stand and then remained indecisive in the matter.  There is a photocopy of the driving licence (annexed at page 74) which shows it was in the name of Sh. Baldev Singh s/o Sh. Santa Singh and was valid for LTV/HTV etc. till 22.12.2016. 

        The Learned counsel for OPs had produced one letter from the Govt. of Nagaland that the driving licences issued after 2009 have to be on smart card otherwise they shall be deemed to have been cancelled. It is a general order while the licence of Sh. Baldev Singh, deceased was valid upto 22.12.2016.  It was not specifically cancelled.  There is no individual verification report produced to show that the driving licence was a fake one. There is also no evidence produced that the complainant had knowledge regarding the fakeness of the DL.  The letter dated 1.8.2014 of the Govt. of Nagaland (at page 84) shows that the formality had to be completed before 1.12.2014 after which the driving licences, other than smart card, shall be treated as cancelled.  It was a simple public information and no specific cancellation order was passed. Not only this, so much so even the verification of driving licence of Sh. Baldev Singh not got done.  As such, there is hardly any scope to record a finding that the driving licence was a fake one. The learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Porwal, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2631.  It is with regard to the fact that verification was done and there was endorsement from the Licensing Authority that the licence was not issued at their end. It was on this score that the DL was held as fake one.  While it is not the case that the validity of the DL in question was got verified from the Registering and Licensing Authority.”

7.           Counsel for the appellants laid challenge to the said finding given by the Forum by placing reliance upon notification dated 1.8.2014 and investigation report placed on record by now moving an application. Investigation Report dated 22.5.2018 does not refer to any particular driving licence. It only shows decision taken by the Government of Nagaland rejecting all driving licences issued in a booklet form after 2009. The relevant portion of the verification  report dated 5.5.2018 reads thus ;

                 “As per Transport Commissioner, Nagaland notification,                       any other driving licence other than smartcard will be                  treated as cancelled or invalid after December,2014.”

Copy of the notification has also been shown at the time of arguments. The relevant part of the said notification reads thus ;

 “Issue of Driving License on booklet has been discontinued in    the State after Smart card has been introduced. Thus any        License purported to have been issued by any authority in     Nagaland on booklet form after 30^th October,2009 is not genuine.”

8.            The Forum has noticed very clearly that at no point of time  driving  licence issued to the deceased Baldev Singh was declared fake. General notification issued cannot be taken against him. Otherwise also, photocopy of the driving licence available at page 74 of the complaint file makes it clear that it is not in a booklet form rather it is in the shape of smartcard.  In view of the above, argument raised to the contrary, stands settled and accordingly the appeal deserves dismissal.

9.          Otherwise also, the appeal is barred by limitation of 28 days (as per office 22 days) and an application has been moved for condonation of delay. Sufficient reasons have not been given  to condone the delay.  It only suggests that time was consumed in  preparing and finalizing the appeal and no other explanation has been given.  The  reason given in the application does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. We find  no justification to condone the delay. The application, thus, stands dismissed.  

10.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is upheld. 

 11 .          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.