THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.562 of 2019
Date of Instt. 29.11.2019
Date of Decision: 16.01.2023
Jagdish Kumar son of Shri Shankar Dass R/o Patti Dargah Mohalla, VPO Beas Pind, Distt. Jalandhar, through attorney Bal Krishan Jassy son of Chaman Lal Jassy r/o 900/2, Rameshwar Colony, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office 4th Floor, Grand Walk Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Vipin Kanwar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant through his attorney namely Bal Krishan Jassy, wherein alleged that the complainant is the registered owner of the car Renault Kwid, bearing registration no.PB-08-DP-6187 and the same was registered on 20.2.2017. The car was purchased by the complainant in the month of February 2017. The said car was fully insured with the OP. Reference may be given to the policy no.404001311710001039. At the time of purchasing the said policy the full premium was paid by the complainant, which was received by the OP. Unfortunately, the said car met with an accident on 20.2.2019 and unfortunately, son of the complainant namely Vijay Kumar died in the said accident and there was a total loss to the said car of the complainant. The photocopy of the DDR no.26 dated 21.2.2019 is on record and the contents of the same may be read as facts of the present complaint. That policy is from 7.3.218 to 6.3.2019. The OP was duly intimated regarding the death of son of the complainant as well as loss of the car. After that all the formalities were completed by the complainant and OP assured that the claim will be paid after the completion of the formalities. Regarding the accident as well as death of son of the complainant, a DDR bearing no.26 dated 21.2.2019 at P. S. Adampur was registered. The following documents as per the requirement of OP was submitted by the complainant in the office of OP.
a) Photocopy of driving licence of Shri Vijay Kumar issued in U.A.E
b) Claim form duly signed
c) Copy of registration certificate of vehicle no. PB-08-DP-6187
d) No Post Mortem of dead body of deceased Vijay Kumar was conducted, therefore, post mortem report cannot be submitted.
e) The co-passenger did not sustain any injury.
f) No third party loss was involved.
g) Because the family of deceased was under deep shock due to death and his father was in Doha Qatar and the cremation of the dead body was other last rites were performed late and after finishing these rites, the claim was lodged.
h) Vehicle's on the spot of accident photographs not available.
Unfortunately, the complainant received a letter dated 13.8.2019 from the OP stating therein that they are not going to pay the claim against the total loss of car by mentioning that OP do not find merits in the claim for settlement and repudiated the same. The complainant is legally entitle for the claim as deceased was having a valid driving license issued by licensing authority Dubai bearing no.1648112 valid upto 26.12.2020. The diseased was eligible for driving the car in question as well as heavy vehicles. International licenses are valid for driving the car. Nowhere in the policy it has been mentioned that international licenses are illegal. OP cannot reject the claim on the pretext that deceased was holding a license issued from Dubai. It is not the case of the OP that license of deceased Vijay Kumar s/o Jagdish Kumar is forged and fabricated or expired or have not been issued by the competent authority. There is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the OP and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12 % P.A. from the date of accident till its realization alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment, mental tension, torture etc. alongwith litigation charges Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OP and that being so the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP, since the driver i.e. Sh. Vijay Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident was not having valid and effective driving license. The driving license of Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Jagdish Kumar, who was driving the alleged vehicle at the time of alleged accident, was having driving license allegedly issued by United Arab Emirates, which is not valid with in India. It is further averred that immediately on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the vehicle bearing registration no.PB08-DP-6187, M/s A.S. Sodhi & Co. were appointed as surveyor, who have submitted their survey report dated 30.07.2019 with the OP, assessing loss, to the tune of Rs.3,09,000/- on total loss basis. In the said survey report, in remarks column at serial no.5, the surveyor has remarked that the driver of the vehicle had no driving license valid in India on the day of accident. Taking into consideration that the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP. On merits, the factum with regard to issuance of Power of Attorney by the complainant in favour of Sh. Bal Krishan Jassy is admitted and the factum with regard to ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant as well as insurance of the vehicle is also admitted. It is also admitted that the vehicle was met with an accident and thereafter claim was lodged by the complainant and the same was repudiated.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.
6. The complainant has proved on record the RC Ex.C-2 showing that he is the registered owner of the Car Renault Kwid. The registration date of the vehicle is 29.02.2017. The complainant has also proved on record the insurance policy Ex.C-3 to prove that the car was fully insured with the OP. This fact of fully insured vehicle has been admitted by the OP also. The complainant has alleged that the car met with an accident on 20.02.2019 and the son of the complainant Vijay Kumar died in the road accident. It has further been alleged that there was a total loss to the car of the complainant. The photocopy of the DDR Ex.C-4 shows that the accident took place on 20.02.2019 at 07:30 PM. The intimation of the death of Vijay Kumar was also given to the OP and claim was lodged with the OP. The OP has proved the insurance claim form Ex.OP-1. The complainant has also proved on record the letter Ex.C-5, which shows that the complainant has written a letter to the OP, vide which he has submitted all the documents sought by them and made request to the OP to settle the claim earlier. The complainant has further alleged that the claim has been repudiated by the OP wrongly vide letter dated 13.08.2019, which has been proved as Ex.C-6.
7. The contention of the OP is that after the receipt of claim form and documents, Surveyor was appointed who gave report Ex.OP-2 and in his report and remarks, he has specified that the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence and the driving license produced before him, which has been proved as Ex.C-7, is not valid in India. Therefore, the claim has rightly been repudiated.
8. Perusal of the driving license Ex.C-7 shows that the deceased Vijay Kumar was residing, as alleged in UAE and he was having driving license of UAE, which was valid from 26.12.2010 to 26.12.2020. Perusal of this driving license further shows that this license is not international license and the same is only issued by the UAE. As per the Rule-3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, this driving license is not valid and does not comply with the Rule-3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule-3 prohibits the driver from driving any motor vehicle unless he is duly licensed to drive the vehicle. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has relied upon the law laid down in a case, titled as “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut” 2007 (2) CPC 395 S. C: 2007 (5) SCC 700, in which it was held that ‘a fake driving license even if renewed validly will not become valid’. In this citation the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon a law, in a case titled as “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devinder Singh” 2008 (1) Consumer Protection Cases 1 (SC), wherein held that ‘where the driving license of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, is found to be fake the owner would not be entitled to compensation from the insurance company arising out of the insurance policy as the fake driving license amounts to breach of the terms of the insurance policy.’ It has further relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (U.T.), in a case titled as “M/s Empire Packages Limited Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited and Others”, wherein it is held that ‘Fake driving license Driver of the vehicle was having a fake driving license when the insured vehicle met with an accident in which driver lost his life-No evidence produced to prove that driver had got his license renewed from Regional Transport Authority - District Forum rightly repudiated the claim holding that driving license was not valid’.
9. As per the guidelines issued by the transport authorities for NRIs and foreigners, the visitors (foreigners, NRI) can get driving license in India according to Section 9 (3) (a ) (iii) of Motor Vehicle Act, which reads as under:-
“(iii) the applicant holds a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued by a competent authority of any country outside India, subject to the condition that the applicant complies with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 8.”
Thus, NRIs and foreigners cannot use their home/residing country licence to drive on Indian roads. An international driving license is valid in India, but the validity is restricted to a maximum of one year.
10. In the present case, the complainant has not proved on record any document to show that he was having international or valid driving license to drive on the roads in India at the time of accident. Though, the accident took place at the time when stray animal came before the car, but at the same time it requires effective driving license to save one self, in such a situation. So, the driving license Ex.C-7 was issued by the UAE and no provision has been proved by the complainant to show that this driving license was valid in India at the time of accident. So, the claim of the complainant vide Ex.C-6 was rightly repudiated and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
16.01.2023 Member Member President
