Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 228
Instituted on : 28.05.2018
Decided on : 10.07.2023.
Mukesh Kumar aged-40 years S/o Sh. Om Parkash resident of village & Post Office Gandhra District Rohtak Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Branch Manager, Divisional Office-II, Narain Complex, IInd Floor, Civil Road, Rohtak(HR).
- National Insurance Company Limited, Registered/head office, through director/operating officer/Secretary, 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700071.
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Prateek Phougat, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Adv. for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is the owner of the vehicle/truck bearing registration no. HR46E-7842 and the same is insured vide policy No.421600/31/16/6300002170. On 16.06.2017, the said vehicle was damaged and complainant intimated to the opposite parties. On intimation, executive/surveyor inspected the vehicle on the spot and submitted its report to the opposite parties. Complainant has spent huge amount on the said vehicle for bringing it to running condition. The complainant has submitted the claim under the insurance policy and completed all the formalities including claim form, estimated bills, surveyor report etc. and the claim form was duly accepted by the opposite parties and the claim is registered vide no. 63-31/17. On 06.04.2018, complainant received a letter from the opposite party as per which it was submitted that the license no.3698/94/FBD issued from the Faridabad authority was fake. It is further submitted that he has not submitted any such DL with claim form. In fact complainant has a valid DL, vide DL No. HR-4619970204776. It is further submitted that the alleged license is duly verified by the Licensing Authority Rohtak. But opposite parties have repudiated the said claim with the remarks of “No Claim” vide letter dated 13.04.2018 due to invalid unreasonable cause. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to reimburse the claim amount of Rs.4,43,210/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their joint reply has submitted that the alleged claim of the complainant was duly processed by the opposite party. The opposite party after scrutinizing documents submitted by the complainant alongwith the details of the claim form observed that the driving license no. HR-4619970204776 in respect of Mukesh Kumar was renewed from RTA Rohtak and previously issued form L.A.Gurgaon. As per further verification from L.A.Gurgaon said driving license was renewed from L.A.Gurgaon vide DL No.1299/RTA/G/1997 and originally issued from L.A.Faridabad. On further verification from L.A. Faridabad for DL No.3698/94/FBD was not found in record and same is not genuine and a fabricated document. It is clear that the alleged driving licence originally issued from L.A.Faridabad was fake license and further renewal has not made it genuine in any manner. Opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Opposite parties sent a letter dated 02.04.2018 regarding that the claim of the complainant deserve for repudiation on account of violation of policy terms and conditions. So, the question of deficiency of service does not arise. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 31.10.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on 27.01.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, as per the respondent insurance company the driving license of Mukesh Kumar was renewed by licensing authority cum Secretary RTA Rohtak upto 04.10.2018. As per Ex.C8, old number of this license was 249/RTK/06. Insurance company further submitted that the driving license of Mukesh Kumar originally issued by RTA Faridabad vide driving license no.3698/94 and as per verification, the record of this license was not found in that authority. This license was verified by insurance company through investigator and the report of the same has been placed on record as Ex.R4 to Ex.R7. Hence after considering this report, the claim of the complainant was repudiated on this ground alone. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1 having 2 pages. The complainant moved an application before the RTA Faridabad regarding the verification of driving licence no.3698/RTA/FBD/94 and regarding this licence, RTA Faridabad has
submitted that fire took place in the office of RTA Faridabad on dated 11.05.2002 and the record of license has been burnt in this incident. So the record of alleged license is not available in this office.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record produced by both the parties. As per insurance company the driving license is fake one and on the other hand as per report issued by the licensing authority Faridabad of dated 16.08.2019 placed on record as Ex.C1, it has been submitted that record of the license has been burnt on dated 11.05.2002. Hence office is unable to give the record of alleged license. As per our opinion, it has not been mentioned by the licensing authority Faridabad anywhere that this license No.3698/RTA/FBD/94 has not ever been issued by the licensing authority and the same is fake or fabricated one. The license was originally issued by RTA Faridabad and thereafter renewed by RTA Gurgaon and RTA Rohtak so many times. The record of licensing authority Faridabad has already been burnt on 11.05.2002, hence it cannot be presumed that license No.3698/RTA/FBD/94 is a fake one. The benefit of doubt goes in favour of the complainant. As per survey report Ex.R10 the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.380076/- after deducting the excess clause Rs.1500/-. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay the alleged loss to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.380076/-(Rupees three lac eighty thousand and seventy six only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.28.05.2018 till its realization, also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.07.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
