DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

M/s VTC (Verma Transport Company) Transport Company Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory - Sh. B.N. Makkar, Railway Road, Village Darua, Chandigarh.

                   ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       National Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 85-86, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

2.       National Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, through its Manager, 3 Middletor Street, Post Box No. 9229, Kolkata- 700071.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Maninder, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant got his truck, bearing Regn. No. CH-04-J-8151, make LPS 4018, Chassis No. MAT447205-93F-05715, Engine No. 90F62763728, year of manufacturer 2009, insured with the Opposite Parties, valid from 3.7.2009 to 2.7.2010, vide cover note Annexure C-2. During the currency of the policy, the said truck met with an accident, on 23.12.2009 at around 11:45 PM, and was damaged to a great extent. Regarding the said accident, an F.I.R. No. 91 dated 24.12.2009, was lodged at P.S. Kathghad, District Bilaspur, H.P. against the driver of the truck (Shiv Shankar Koiri) and his license was taken in possession by the police (License of the Driver and the F.I.R. is at Annexure C-3). It is alleged that the truck was got repaired from M/s Pasco Motors, Chandigarh for the total cost of Rs.5,33,243/- (Annexure C-4), but the Insurance Company refused to make the payment of the bill.  The Complainant claims that the driver of the truck, aforesaid, was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The licence of the said driver was also verified by the Opposite Parties as per letter dated 9.7.2010 issued by Sanjay Kumar Chobey, Advocate/Investigator (Annexure C-5). When the Opposite Parties failed to settled the claim of the Complainant, despite lapse of almost 1 ½ year, a legal notice dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure C-6) was served upon the Opposite Parties, in reply whereof, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure C-7) intimated about the rejection of the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the driving licence of the driver which was found to be genuine was not given to them along with claim form rather another licence in the name of Shankar Singh was given which was found to have not been issued by the competent authority.  Hence, this complaint.

                   The complaint of the Complainant is duly verified and is supported by a detailed affidavit of Sh. B.N. Makkar, Director, M/s VTC (Verma Transport Company) Transport Company Ltd.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

3.                Opposite Party in their joint reply, admitted that the vehicle of the Complainant company bearing Regn. No. CH-04-J-8151 was insured by Opposite Party No.1 vide Policy No. 400101/31/2009/ 6300002085, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, damage to the vehicle and lodging of F.I.R. has also been admitted. It is denied the driving licence of the driver - Shiv Shankar Koiri was taken into possession by the Police. It is pleaded that the Complainant had preferred a claim under the terms of the policy and submitted Motor Claim Form dated 26.02.2010 (Ex.R-1), wherein the name of the driver at the time of accident was mentioned as Shankar Singh s/o Ram Parkash Singh, having driving licence No. 1324/2003/Balia issued by the Licencing Authority, MV Department, Balia. The answering Opposite Parties sent the said driving licence for verification and as per report made by the office of ARTO, Balia dated 8.4.2010 (Ex.R-2), it has been verified that the said licence was not issued from the office of Balia. This fact was duly informed to the Complainant, vide letter dated 10.5.2010, in response whereof the Complainant sent letters dated 21.05.2010, 16.6.2010, submitting another driving licence No. 307/0R/SKN/04 of one Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Parshad Koiri issued by Licensing Authority, MV Department, Kabir Nagar. In response to the same, Opposite Party No.1,  vide letter dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure R-4), informed the Complainant that the second driving licence produced by it cannot be considered for the admissibility of the claim, in question, and it was concluded that at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by the person, whose licence was submitted in the claim form, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the Complainant was given 7 days notice before the repudiation of the claim.  It is further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the driver who was driving the vehicle, was not holding a valid & effective driving licence and as such, the insured has violated the terms & conditions of the Policy, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated under the terms of the policy, as well as under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. The said decision of repudiation of claim was duly communication to the Complainant vide letter dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure R-5). Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                   The reply of Opposite Party is not verified, but is supported by a detailed affidavit of K.G. Sharma, Sr. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd BO-I, Chandigarh.

4.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5.                The present complaint of the Complainant has been preferred on the ground that the Opposite Parties failed to honour its claim lodged with them for the loss suffered by the vehicle insured with the Opposite Parties. The copy of insurance policy during the currency of which the said insured vehicle met with an accident is annexed as Annexure C-2. The happening of the accident was reported to P.S. Kathghad, District Bilaspur, vide an F.I.R. No. 91 dated 24.12.2009, which is Annexure C-3. The Complainant had lodged its claim vide Annexure R-1 produced on record by the Opposite Parties, which bears the stamp of VTC Transport Pvt. Ltd. and signatures of the insured are also found appended along with the stamp.  The said claim was lodged on 26.2.2010. 

6.                The Opposite Parties while repudiating the letter of the Complainant, vide their letter Annexure R-5 (Annexure C-7 of the complaint) mentioned the reason for repudiation as that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident did not hold a valid and effective driving licence, which was revealed after the verification of the driving licence of the person, claimed to have been driving the vehicle, which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, the Opposite Parties have claimed that the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant was as per the terms & conditions.   

7.                We have gone through the claim form (Annexure R-1) in which, under the column where the details of the person driving the vehicle, it is found that the driver’s name is mentioned as Sh. Shankar Singh s/o Sh. Ram Prakash Singh, aged 33 years, R/o Vill. Betori, Balia, who was shown to be as a paid driver. He is also shown to have been under employment for about last 02 years.  The driving licence number is mentioned as 1324/2003/Balia, issued by the Licensing Authority M.V. District Balia, which was valid up to 8.4.2011.  The Opposite Parties have got this driving licence submitted to them, investigated, but unfortunately, the investigations reveal that the said driving licence was not issued by Licensing Authority M.V. District Balia.  The investigation reports are found annexed at Ex. R-2 & R-3. The Opposite Parties claim that on the basis of investigations, having found that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of the accident, was not having a valid and effective driving licence; hence, the claim is not payable. 

8.                Interestingly, Complainant has claimed in the present complaint that the actual driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was actually one Sh. Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Sh. Rama Prasad Koiri, who had a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and hence, the claim is payable. The copy of the driving licence is annexed at Annexure C-3 to the complaint.

9.                To our mind, the Complainant initially had disclosed the driver’s name as Shankar Singh son of Sh. Ram Prakash Singh. This information is also the part of the claim form submitted by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties, but thereafter, after the repudiation, the Complainant cannot claim that there was some other driver, having effective and valid driving licence, was actually driving the vehicle, at the time of the accident.   The Complainant has actually tried to replace or substitute the name of the driver, whose name was not mentioned initially by it, while filling up the claim form. The Complainant has also not denied the contents of the claim form, which was duly filled up by it. Hence, the Complainant cannot be allowed to take two different stands with regard to a single cause of action. The Complainant has also not mentioned any reason as to why the name of Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh was mentioned as a driver in the claim form in the first place instead of Sh. Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Sh. Rama Prasad Koiri, nor any reason is assigned as to why some other person’s driving licence was produced to claim the effectiveness and validity, so as to claim the losses of the insured vehicle. It is also noticed that the claim was lodged with the Opposite Parties after a passage of three long months from the date of happening of the accident. Even the spot survey, which was conducted, too, mentions the same driver particulars, as well as driving licence details, as are found in the final survey report. We feel that the Complainant is itself estopped in changing its stand vis-à-vis the identity of the driver, along with his driving licence, which was initially disclosed by it, and the contents of the claim form mentions the details, which were filled up by the Complainant, while filling up the claim form under its seal & signatures. 

10.              In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.         

11.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20^th February, 2013.                                                                                         

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER