Complainant Ex.Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that opposite party may kindly be dealt according to law and opposite party also be directed to pay the insurance claim to him.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a retired person from the Army and is the owner of car bearing No.PB-35-P-1432 make “Esteem Zen” and he also got insurance from the opposite party while paying Rs.7991/- for the period of one year vide policy No.3510103113513949108. It was pleaded that on 20.08.2014, the above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident with train and at the time of the accident he was driving the car at 2.25 P.M. and FIR was also lodged n this regard in GRP Pathankot vide FIR No.37 dated 20.08.2015 U/s 279, 427 IPC and matter was also reported to the opposite party on the same day and Surveyor of the company came at the spot and made enquiry and collected all the documents from the complainant and instructed him to get repaired from the workshop. It was pleaded that complainant got repaired his vehicle as per the instructions of the Surveyor and the said vehicle remained in the workshop many a days but the opposite party did not pay any amount of repair charges to the workshop which was Rs.1,31,480/- as actual amount of repair which was due towards the opposite party. It was further pleaded that complainant requested the opposite party many times for payment of repair charges which was paid by him to the workshop but the opposite party did not pay a single penny to him and avoided the matter with one pretext or the other. It was next pleaded that inadvertently complainant produced two driving licence one was Maharashtra Govt. and one was of Punjab Govt. and on this ground opposite party refused to pay any amount to the complainant whereas as per motor vehicle act u/s 148, 149 insurance company cannot refuse to pay the claim or compensation to the party. It was also pleaded that on 28.09.2015, a legal notice was also issued to the opposite part and in reply to the notice opposite party refused to pay the amount and as such opposite party failed to make the payment to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complainant was served upon the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as he had filed the present complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such the same is liable to be dismissed as complainant had miserably failed to disclose the deficiency, if any, in the services of the opposite party; complaint is without any cause of action and all the allegations made in the complaint are not specifically denied as the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. On merits, it was admitted that vehicle no.PB-35-P-1432 met with an accident on 20.08.2014 but it was denied that intimation was given to the opposite party on the same day. It was stated that intimation was given by the complainant to the opposite party on 23.08.2014 after the delay of 3 days. It was stated that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident on 23.08.2014 from the complainant opposite party deputed Satnam Singh Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pathankot for spot survey who submitted his motor spot survey report on 22.08.2014 and thereafter opposite party also deputed H.S.Bawa’s Surveyor’s and Loss Assessor to assess the loss of the vehicle who assessed the loss of the vehicle amounting to Rs.1,06,668.40 vide his detailed report dated 09.02.2015. It was further stated that complainant submitted two driving licenses one issued by L.A. Maharashtra and other by L.A. Gurdaspur and the Surveyor which was appointed by the opposite party to assess the loss of the vehicle had very specifically pointed out regarding the two driving licenses. It was next stated that opposite party written a letter dated 19.03.2015 to the complainant for the explanation of two driving licenses at one time issued by different licensing authority and reply of this letter was given by the complainant on 23.03.2015 vide which he admitted the fact of having two driving licenses at the time of alleged accident issued by the different licensing authority and as such complainant breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by holding two driving licenses at the time of accident and as per his admission opposite party was not liable to indemnify the loss. It was also stated that as per provision of section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act, a person cannot hold two driving licenses at the same time during the existence of first driving license. It was stated that fake license was issued on 02.10.2003 and the second valid license was issued on 16.07.2007 and as such as per section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the holding of second license by the driver was illegal and against the provisions of section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act and Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the loss. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs under section 35-A C.P.C.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh.Karan Singh Ex.C2 along with documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
5. Sh.Parveen Chadda Branch Manager has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the alleged ‘non-settlement’ of the complainant’s accident claim (Ex.OP3) by the OP insurers since it was accompanied by ‘2’ nos. of Driving Licenses holding of which stands ‘restricted’ U/s 6 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. We, however find that the OP insurers have failed to establish that even an innocent ‘non-observance’ of one statutory ‘restriction’ shall hold bar on ‘settlement’ of an otherwise valid insurance claim. The learned counsel for the OP insurers has sought support of the honorable Punjab State Commission vide its orders in FA # 947/2012 titled: Kewal Krishan vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., but that does not help them either on account of sleek but divergent ratios. Firstly, the ‘2’ DLs are not held by professional/ paid ‘driver’ but by an ex-serviceman in his innocence. Secondly, no DL has ever been found ‘fake’ as in the case of ‘quoted’ judgment that was pronounced towards disposal of an FA filed for enhancement of compensation awarded but @ ‘non-standard’ measure.
8. We, finally find that the OP insurers’ act of withholding of ‘settlement’ of present insurance claim on this very count alone and causing further ‘delay’ in communicating its ‘repudiation’ to the complainant does amount to ‘deficiency in service’ coupled with adoption of ‘unfair trade practice’ and that certainly holds the OP insurers liable to an adverse statutory ‘award’ under the applicable statute.
9. In the light of the all above, we find that the OP insurers have indeed infringed the consumer rights of the present complainant and thus ORDER them to settle and pay him the impugned insurance claim in full but in terms of the Surveyor’s Final Report besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
OCT. 14, 2016 Member.
*YP*
