DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 157 of 16-04-2013

Decided on 12-07-2013

Harjinder Singh aged 48 years S/o Kulwant Singh, R/o Kot Fatta, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office : 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata 700 071, through its CMD/MD/Chairman/GM.

2. Senior Divisional Manager/Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., The Mall, Bathinda. ….....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sukhpal Singh, proxy counsel for Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Bansal,counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that his T-Indigo CS LX Car bearing registration No. PB-03-Z-3720 was insured with opposite party No. 2 vide policy No. 25331031116120075994 for the period from 1-2-2012 to 31-1-2013. On 18-7-2012, the said car met with an accident with another car near Gill Kalan on Bathinda Barnala Road due to stray cattle. In the said accident, drivers of both the cars got severe injuries. The car of the complainant was totally damaged and the matter was reported to the police as well as to the opposite parties. DDR No. 21 regarding effecting compromise was recorded on 18-07-2012 by the police Sadar Rampura. The opposite parties appointed the surveyor who directed the complainant to dispose off the vehicle and they would provide Rs. 2,49,000/- as balance loss of vehicle. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties obtained consent letter from the complainant for making payment of Rs. 2,49,000/- and affidavit regarding free will of getting Rs. 2,49,000/- as claim. The complainant submitted all the documents with the opposite parties in the month of July, 2012, but the payment of claim has not been made till date. The complainant further alleged that he made repeated requests to the opposite parties to make the payment of claim amount of Rs. 2,49,000/-, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay him claim amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- with interest alongwith compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and admitted that the car in question is insured with them. The opposite parties have pleaded that the insured has disposed off the insured vehicle without first getting his claim settled and even without the consent of the opposite parties. The complainant has concealed the fact that Gurjeet Singh, who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive insured vehicle. As per Investigation and verification report, the driving licence of Gurjeet Singh bearing No. 30458/NDL date of issue 14-6-2004 and date of expiry 13-6-2022 is not genuine, rather the same is fake. The surveyor is not supposed to direct the insured to dispose off the vehicle and rather the surveyor has specifically mentioned in the report not to dispose off the vehicle. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the claim, if any, is payable only as per terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrongs.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly the car in question of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No. 25331031116120075994 for the period from 1-2-2012 to 31-1-2013 Ex. OP-1/3. On 18-7-2012, the said car met with an accident with another car near Gill Kalan on Bathinda Barnala Road due to stray cattle. The matter was reported to the police as well as to the opposite parties. DDR No. 21 regarding effecting compromise was recorded on 18-07-2012 by the police Sadar Rampura vide Ex. C-5. The opposite parties appointed the spot as well as final surveyor to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The claim of the complainant has not been paid till date.

6. The submission of the complainant is that after the accident, the opposite parties appointed the surveyor and obtained the consent letter as well as affidavit from him for the payment of Rs. 2,49,000/- on cash loss under net of salvage basis, but till date nothing has been paid to him.

7. On the other hand, the submission the opposite parties is that since the complainant did not produce before the surveyor, the original driving licence of Gurjeet Singh who was driving the car in question at the time of accident on the pretext that the original licence has been misplaced at the time of accident, the opposite parties sought verification from the D.T.O Bathinda and upon verification, licence of Gurjeet Singh was found fake. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to any claim as per policy terms and conditions.

8. Er. Gurjinder Singh of M/s. G.S. Associates, spot surveyor in his report Ex. OP-1/5 has mentioned in the column Driver's Particulars that the “Original D.L. to be checked.” Since the complainant did not produce the original licence before the surveyor as well as opposite parties and stated that the original licence misplaced in the accident, the opposite parties appointed Mr. Rajan Singla, investigator to investigate and verify the particulars of driving licence of Gurjeet Singh from D.T. O, Bathinda. The said Investigator vide his report Ex. OP-1/7 has opined that licence No. 30458/NDL favouring Gurjeet Singh S/o Birbal Singh valid from 14-6-2004 to 13-6-2022 is not genuine as the dealing clerk confirmed him verbally that on 14-6-2004 the DTO office has issued licence from serial No. 24994 to 24999 and no record is available in the name of said Gurjeet Singh. The opposite parties asked Mr. Rajan Singla, to verify the matter again. Accordingly the said Investigator moved application under RTI to DTO, Bathinda and sought information regarding the driving licence in question. The relevant portion of final investigation/verification report Ex. OP-1/8 reads as under :-

   “...The DTO, Bathinda has provided us a copy of DDR No. 18 dated 26-12-2012 P.S. Civil Lines, Bathinda, in which the missing driving licence registered and period of the said register is mentioned and the above said licence has fallen in the said missing register. The said DDR is verified from concerned police station...

   Secondly from the perusal of photocopy of driving licence No. 30458 of Gurjeet Singh and driving licence number is appeared as tampered/overwrite.

   The another point is issuance date of driving licence is mentioned as 14-6-2004 whereas as per DTO records on 14-6-2004, the DTO office has issued licence from serial No. 24994 to 24999 and no record is available in the name of said Gurjeet Singh and dealing hand also refused to issue any thing in writing in this regard and as per DDR licence No. 30458 falls on 19-10-2004. Hence licence is not appears as genuine one.”

   The opposite parties have produced on file the affidavit Ex. OP-1/8 of aforesaid Mr. Rajan Singla, Insurance Claims Investigator, wherein he has deposed that on 14-6-2004, D.T.O. Bathinda, issued licence from serial No. 24994 to 24999 and no record is available in the name of said Gurjeet Singh and aforesaid driving licence No. 30458 falls on 19-10-2004, hence the aforesaid driving licence is not genuine one and is found fake.

9. The complainant has failed to rebut this evidence of the opposite parties meaning thereby that he has produced nothing on file to prove that the aforesaid licence of Gurjeet Singh is genuine. On the policy of the vehicle/car in question of the complainant Ex. C-3, Driver's Clause is specifically mentioned vide which it is made clear that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle should hold valid and effective licence.

10. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence on file, this Forum is of the considered opinion that since the complainant has failed to prove that Gurjeet Singh, who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident was holding effective and valid licence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the claim of the complainant. The support can be sought from the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shri Ram Investment Ltd., & Anr 2013(II) CPJ 588 (NC) wherein it has been held :-

    “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) 21(a)(ii) - Insurance – Accident of vehicle – Fake driving licence – Surveyor appointed – Loss assessed – Claim repudiated – Alleged deficiency in service – State Commission partly allowed complaint – hence appeal – Renewal cannot transform a fake licence into a genuine licence – When the owner had engaged a driver after verifying the fact that he had a driving licence which turned out to be fake, Insurance Company cannot be made liable to reimburse the loss – Impugned order set aside.

11. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

 

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record.

    Pronounced in open Forum

    12-07-2013

    (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

    (Amarjeet Paul)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member