Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/199

M/s Onkar Logistics - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Ankur Ghai

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:199 dated 23.09.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 24.07.2023.

 

M/s. Onkar Logistics, Village Mohan Pur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana through Sh. Akshit Ghai, Authorized person.                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office 4^th Floor, Grand Walk Mall, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana through General Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Khanna, through General Manager.                                                                                                                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ankur Ghai, Advocate.

For Ops                          :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant firm is the owner of TATA 407/27 bearing No.PB-10-FF-8269 and got the same insured from opposite parties vide insurance policy No.404004311710000992 having validity from 14.03.2018 to 13.03.2019. The complainant also obtained fitness certificate and goods carriage permit of the said vehicle. The complainant stated that it has engaged driver Gurjit Singh son of Iqbal Singh, r/o. VPO Libra, Tehsil Khanna, Dist. Ludhiana for the said vehicle who has driving licence No.PB-2620160021759 for a vehicle class MCWG, LMV valid up to 18.01.2036. The complainant further stated that on 18.02.2019, the vehicle driven by the said driver met with an accident near Sohi Palace, Zirakpur. The driver was taken to GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh for treatment. The vehicle was damaged and a DDR No.13 dated 19.02.2019 was lodged with PP Baltana, P.S. Zirakpur. According to the complainant, no third party loss of any nature nor any T.P. property damage occurred due to the accident. Intimation was given to the opposite parties.   The complainant obtained estimate from The Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana who gave total estimate of spare parts and labour of Rs.4,72,567/- and the vehicle was taken to Khanna through recovery services. The complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite parties but the opposite parties had kept the matter pending on account of some issues regarding license of Gurjit Singh. Then the complainant vide letter dated 15.05.2019 submitted about driving license bearing No.PB-2620160021759 and also requested to depute the surveyor. The opposite parties appointed RP Gupta and Company as surveyor and on demand of the surveyor, the complainant supplied all the documents. The complainant further stated that vide letter dated 15.10.2019, the opposite parties called upon him to submit the documents and further claimed that the investigation found out that the driving license bearing No.PB1020160021759/2016 is incorrect and there was misrepresentation. Vide said letter, the complainant was informed that the claim was not tenable. The complainant submitted reply vide letter dated 24.10.2019 claiming that the driver at the time of his appointment had given driving license bearing No.PB26201060021759/19.01.2016 and as per his knowledge, the said license was valid and genuine. In fact, the information obtained from licensing authority Motor Vehicle Khanna had verified the driving license bearing No.PB26201060021759/19.01.2016 valid up to 18.01.2036. According to the complainant, the driving license was valid and no question of misrepresentation arose. However, the opposite parties rejected and repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.11.2019 by referring the provision that the driver was not holding a valid driving license as on the date and time of accident and further the complainant had committed breach and violation of the policy. The opposite parties further claimed that Gurjit Singh was holding multiple licenses in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act on restriction on holding of driving licenses and allowing unauthorized persons to drive vehicle. The complainant further stated that the opposite parties have wrongly rejected his claim and closed the file by adopting unfair, unethical trade practices. Even the opposite parties were aware that Gurjit Singh was holding valid driving license bearing No.PB26201060021759/19.01.2016 valid up to 18.01.2036 and they ought to have allowed the claim as there was no breach of the condition of the policy on the part of the complainant. Any act of the driver beyond the scope of employment i.e. holding multiple licenses or not, has no bearing on the rights, interest of the complainant as he had duly performed his duty at the time of engagement of driver by checking his driving skills and his driving license which was also verified from Licensing Authority Khanna. The complainant served legal notice dated 23.11.2019 upon the opposite parties to which they sent false reply dated 06.12.2019 claiming that the driving license of the driver found on spot of accident is not valid and effective and that two different driving licenses are produced which shows misrepresentation as per declaration in claim form. The complainant further stated that due to rejection of the claim by the opposite parties, he had to pay Rs.4,45,681/- to Dada Motor Pvt. Ltd. towards repair charges against receipt/invoice. The complainant again approached the opposite parties to reimburse the payment but they refused to agree the genuine request of the complainant and refused to pay. The act and conduct of the opposite parties in wrongly rejecting the claim of the complainant had caused acute mental agony to the complainant to which he is entitled to compensation besides repair charges etc. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,20,681/- i.e. Rs.4,45,681/- repair charges, Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint  written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint, the complainant has not come to court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint etc. The opposite parties averred that immediately on the receipt of the claim it was duly registered, entertained and processed. The complainant has got Tata 407 a commercial vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10-FF-8269 insured from opposite party No.2 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office G.T. Road, Khanna vide Motor Goods Carrying Vehicle - Package policy No.40404/31/17/10 000992 valid from 14.03.2018 to 13.03.2019. According to the opposite parties, the insurance policy is a contract in itself and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is clearly stated under the head “Persons or Classes of Persons entitled to drive” - Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license provided also that a person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In other words a person must be holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident can drive the vehicle. The opposite parties further stated that M/s. RP Gupta & Company, an IRDA licensed and approved Surveyors, Valuers and Chartered Engineers, 241-A, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana was appointed as Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss caused to vehicle No.PB-10-FF-8269 Model 2016, who personally inspected the vehicle, took the photographs and other documents and submitted his Motor Survey Report Interim dated 27.02.2019 and Motor Survey Report (Final) and Re-inspection dated 03.10.2019 under his signatures clearly assessing the loss to Rs.2,12,000/-.

                   The opposite parties further stated that the complainant had lodged the claim vide intimation letter dated 25.02.2009 with opposite party No.2 by submitting duly filled and signed claim form by clearly declaring and stating that Shri Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Iqbal Singh was driving vehicle No. PB-10-FF-8269 on the date of alleged accident dated 19.02.2019 giving the particulars of his driving license bearing No.PB-1020160021759 issued by Licensing Authority, Ludhiana valid up till 22.05.2020 and details of vehicular documents i.e. permit No.2378/ PB-10/GV/2018 valid up till 07.03.2023 issued by RTA, Ludhiana and fitness certificate valid up till 03.04.2019 and supplied the photocopies of the driving license of Shri Gurjeet Singh, registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate to the opposite parties. Further, Shri Japneet Singh, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor, B-34-5795, Raghbir Park, Jassian Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana was appointed to verify the genuineness of fitness certificate of vehicle No.PB-10-FF-8269 who had moved an application with the DTO Office, Ludhiana dated 17.04.2019 to verify the validity of fitness certificate. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ludhiana after due verification of their records had submitted the report on the application dated 17.04.2019 moved by the said surveyor to that effect. After the receipt of the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ludhiana, Sh. Japneet Singh prepared his report bearing Ref. No.NIC/GST/0804/2K19-2K20 dated 22.07.2019 under his signatures and submitted the same with the opposite parties. Sh. Japneet Singh, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed to verify the genuineness of permit of vehicle No.PB-10-FF-8269 bearing No.2378/PB- 10/GV/2018. The said surveyor had moved an application with the DTO Office, Ludhiana dated 17.04.2019 to verify the validity of aforesaid permit. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ludhiana after due verification of their records had submitted the report on the application dated 17.04.2019 moved by the said surveyor to that effect. After the receipt of the report of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ludhiana, Sh. Japneet Singh prepared his report bearing Ref. No.NIC/GST/0709/2K19- 2K20 dated 13.07.2019 under his signatures and submitted the same with the opposite parties. The opposite parties further stated that Sh. Jaspreet Singh Malik, Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer, resident of 1315, Urban Estate, Phase II, Dugri, Ludhiana was appointed to verify the genuineness of driving license No.PB- 1020160021759 a/c Sh. Gurjeet Singh. The said surveyor had moved an application with the Licensing Authority, Ludhiana dated 17.04.2019 to verify the validity of aforesaid driving license. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ludhiana after due verification of their records had submitted the report on the  application dated 17.04.2019 moved by the said surveyor to the effect as under:-

"Returned in original with the remarks that DL No.PB- 1020160021759 in the name of Shri Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Iqbal Singh has not been issued by this office as per records".

After the receipt of the report of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ludhiana, Sh. Jaspreet Singh Malik prepared his report bearing Ref. No.JSM/NIC/19-20/033 dated 22.04.2019 under his signatures and submitted the same with the opposite parties clearly stating that the subject driving license has not been issued by the office of Licensing Authority, Ludhiana as per office record. When the complainant came to know that the driving license of Sh. Gurjeet Singh bearing No.PB-1020160021759 has been found to be fake having never been issued by the office of Regional Transport Authority/Licensing Authority, Ludhiana as per their records, the complainant vide their letter dated 15.05.2019 submitted another driving license of Sh. Gurjeet Singh bearing No.PB-2620160021759. Vide letter dated 15.05.2019 the complainant confirmed and admitted that Sh. Gurjeet Singh was holding two driving licenses. As per section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act, a person cannot hold two driving licenses at one and the same time.

                   According to the opposite parties, after the receipt of the survey report of M/s. R.P. Gupta & Company along with documents, verification report of Sh. Jaspreet Singh Malik dated 22.04.2019 in respect to the driving license No.PB-1020160021759 a/c Sh. Gurjeet Singh, verification report of permit and fitness certificate submitted by Sh. Japneet Singh dated 13.07.2019 and 22.07.2019 respectively and letter dated 15.05.2019 of the complainant whereby they have supplied the second driving license of Sh. Gurjeet Singh bearing No.PB- 2620160021759, claim form and all other documents placed in the claim file and after scrutinizing all the documents placed in the claim file and after due application of the mind by the officials of the opposite parties in view of terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the complainant was called upon by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 15.10.2019 to show cause as to why their claim be not repudiated as per the details given in the letter dated 15.10.2019 since the same is not tenable with a request to the complainant to give the reply to the said letter within 15 days if there is anything contrary to say failing which the claim of the complainant shall be repudiated as no claim. The complainant received the said letter but sent an unsatisfactory reply dated 24.10.2019. After going through the reply dated 24.10.2019 received on 30.10.2019 and after scrutinizing all the documents placed in the claim file and after due application of mind by the official of the respondent in view of terms and conditions of the policy obtained by the complainant and the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as no claim vide letter dated 13.11.2019 on the grounds that Sh. Gurjeet Singh son of Sh. Iqbal Singh who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and has multiple licenses which is violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act under the head "Restriction on holding driving license".

The opposite parties further stated that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as no claim and the grounds of repudiation are legal, valid, enforceable and are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA guidelines and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of their claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. PA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P23 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 and 2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Kanchan Bansal, Divisional  Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. DO No.3, Kochhar Market, Ludhiana as well as affidavit ex. RB  of Sh. Japneet Singh, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Ludhiana, affidavit Ex. RC of Sh. Jaspreet Singh Malik, Surveyor, Loss Assessor and Valuer, Ludhiana, affidavit Ex. RD of Sh. R.P. Gupta of M/s. R.P. Gupta & Company, an IRDA licensed and approved Surveyors, Valuers and Chartered Engineers, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R59 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written replies along with affidavits and documents produced on record by the parties.

6.                On 18.02.2019, the commercial vehicle TATA 407/27 bearing No.PB-10-FF-8269 owned by the complainant firm met with an accident in the area of Zirakpur near Sohi Palace and at the time of accident, it was being driven by Gurjit Singh son of Iqbal Singh. Intimation Ex. R1 was sent to the opposite parties and in the meantime DDR No.13 dated 19.02.2019 Ex. P6=R31 was lodged with PP Baltana, P.S. Zirakpur. The vehicle was towed away to the workshop of Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana who initially estimated the loss to be Rs.4,45,681/-. The complainant lodged the claim vide document Ex. R3=R14 along with the driving license Ex. P25 of Gurjit Singh driver. Sh. R.P. Gupta of M/s. R.P. Gupta & Company, an IRDA licensed and approved Surveyors, Valuers and Chartered Engineers, Ludhiana inspected the vehicle, took photographs and submitted two reports dated 27.02.2019 Ex. R37 and 03.10.2019 Ex. R4 and assessed the loss to be Rs.2,12,000/-. Thereafter, Sh. Japneet Singh was deputed to verify the permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle who vide document Ex. R43, Ex. R44, Ex. R46 and Ex. R47 found the same to be in order. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed to verify the driving license who obtained report Ex. R41 and intimated the opposite parties vide his letter Ex. R40 and found the driving license Ex. R25 to be fake one. Relevant part of the report is reproduced as under:-

"Returned in original with the remarks that DL No.PB- 1020160021759 in the name of Shri Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Iqbal Singh has not been issued by this office as per records".

7.                After becoming aware about non-genuineness of the driving license of driver Gurjit Singh, the complainant submitted another driving license of Gurjit Singh Ex. R26 issued by Registering Authority at Khanna. After exchange of correspondence between the parties, on 13.11.2019, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter Ex. R52, the relevant part of which reads as under:-

“This is in continuation with our letter dated 19.7.2019, pre- repudiation letter dated 15.10.2019.

With reference to your letter dated 24.10.2019 regarding reply of pre-repudiation letter sent.

As per claim intimation dated 25.02.2019 and original claim form dated 25.02.2019. Driver Mr. Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Iqbal Singh, DL No.PB-1020160021759 issuing authority Ludhiana RTO.

As per investigation report and confirmation from concerned RTO has confirmed that "D/L No.PB-1020160021759/2016 in the name of Shri Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Iqbal Singh has not been issued by the office as per record."

As per your letter dated 15.05.2019 regarding DL received through claim hub. You have submitted two different DL of the driver Shri Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Iqbal Singh.

As per driving license of the drivers found on spot of accident is not valid and effective on date of accident and two different driving licenses are produced which shows misrepresentation as per declaration in claim form.

As per driver's clause in insurance policy and Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 6, 180.

Driver's Clause:

Persons or clause of Persons entitled to drive: Any person including the insured, provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989.

Motor Vehicle Act, Section 6:

6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licenses:-

No person shall, while he holds any driving license for the time being in force, hold any other driving license except a learner's license or a driving license issued in accordance with the provisions of section 18 or a document authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.

Motor Vehicle Act, Section 180:

180. Allowing unauthorized persons to drive vehicles:

Whoever, being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, cause or permits, any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or sections 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to  three months, or with which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

As per reply to pre-repudiation letter sent did not addressed the issues mentioned in pre-repudiated letter regarding violation of drivers clause at the time of accident and as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act (Section 6, 180) and CMVR (Rules 139) original vehicle documents and driving license is to be carried at the time of accident/trip. No other documents related to DL is submitted.

As the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident Sh. Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Iqbal Singh DL No.PB- 1020160021759/2016 was not holding a valid and effective license at the time of accident and having multiple licenses in violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act on restriction on holding of driving licenses and allowing un-authorized persons to drive vehicles, hence necessitates repudiation.

In view of the reason stated above we are unable to find merit in your claim for settlement, hence necessitates repudiation. We are closing claim file as repudiated.”

8.                Perusal of repudiation letter Ex. R52 shows that it has not only referred to the clause of the insurance policy but also the relevant law applicable for holding of a valid driving licence. Further scrutiny of driver’s cause in the insurance policy categorically stipulates that a driver is required to hold an effective driving license at the time of accident. The DDR lodged by Gurjit Singh driver himself corroborates this fact. Further that the license which turned out to be fake on verification, was submitted by the complainant himself at the time of lodging the claim. Thereafter, the complainant took and submitted another licence of Gurjit Singh. So the acts and conduct of the complainant prove u-turn but these facts clearly prove that it is Gurjit Singh who was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. So the driver’s clause was rightly invoked by the opposite parties to deny the claim of the complainant. The submission of another driving license also goes against the complainant and holding of multiple licenses by a person is in-permissible under law. Further the second driving license produced by the complainant is valid for MCWG and LMV and it remains to be seen whether driver Gurjit Singh was competent to drive the commercial vehicle on the strength of second driving license. Undoubtedly, the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted to protect the right of the consumer but it cannot be extended to allow the consumer to violate the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.

9.                The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was not aware regarding the fact that the driving license produced by driver Gurjit Singh was fake and he had made enquiries with his due diligence and the opposite parties cannot be run away from their liability to reimburse the claim. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the complainant relied upon 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 835 (SC) in Premkumari and others Vs Prahlad Dev and others; 2020(2) J.K.J 343 (SC) in Nirmala Kothari Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 64 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others Vs Makhan Singh and others; 2006(1) RCR(Civil) 61 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harnek Singh and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court); 2006(10 RCR (Civil) 821 in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Krishna and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court).

10.              On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the insured is under an obligation to disclose all the facts candidly and any falsehood or misrepresentation made by the complainant while raising a claim amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The counsel for the opposite parties has further argued that since the complainant has been found guilty of making misrepresentation and concealing real facts, the claim has been rightly repudiated in terms and conditions of the policy. The counsel for the opposite parties relied upon  IV (2011) CPJ 58 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. And another Vs Gopal Pathak passed by the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula; III (2006) CPJ 225 in Oriental Insurance Company td. Vs Dayal Singh passed by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur; III (2006) CPJ 226 in Mohd. Aalmgir Vs Punjab National Bank and others passed by the Hon’ble Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow; IV (2009) CPJ 168 in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Jitender Kumar passed by the Hon’ble Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula; II (2002) CPJ 149 (Har.) in Kuldeep Singh Vs United India Insurance Co. passed by the Hon’ble Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula. The counsel for the opposite parties has further contended that there is no merit in the complaint and same deserves to be dismissed.

11.              We have weighed the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully.

12.              In this regard, reference can be made to 2010(4) Supreme Court Cases 776 in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Saheb Singh whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under:-

“Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Ss. 149(2) (a) (ii), 147 and 3 to 5- Claim of insurance where driving licence is fake-Different approach for third-party damage and damage to owner’s vehicle-Forums below awarding compensation for damage to owner’s vehicle (i.e. not being a third-party damage) driven by a driver having a fake licence-Said compensation, held is not sustainable- it would have been sustainable on the ground of fake licence in claims regarding third-party damage only- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , Ss. 2(1)(o) & (g).”

 

Further reference can be made to 2007(8) Supreme Court Cases 698 in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Davinder Singh whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-

“A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Ss. 147 and 149 - Renewal of originally forged/fake licence- Liability of insurer to indemnify damage caused to owner of vehicle by person driving and causing accident of the vehicle while having only such licence - Reiterated, there is no such liability - Once licence is found to be fake, the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence - Hence (consumer) Forums below erred in holding insurer liable to indemnify owner of vehicle in regard to losses sustained by owner in such a case. 

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – S. 147 - Scope of compulsory insurance cover under - Damages suffered by owner of vehicle, reiterated, are not compulsorily insurable - Distinction with situation obtaining in case of damage caused to a third-party victim of motor vehicle accident, reiterated.

C.  Consumer Protection – Services – Insurance- Motor Insurance – Deficiency of service – What is - Complaint of deficiency of service for non-payment of claim in case of damage caused to assured owner due to driving of vehicle by driver having originally forged licence though later renewed.  – Maintainability of – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss.2(1)(g) & (o).

Further reference can be made to 2010(15) Supreme Court of Cases 527 in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Om Prakash Jain whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has further held as under:-

“Consumer Protection - Services - Insurance - Motor Vehicle Insurance - Liability of insurer - Claim of compensation by owner for accident of vehicle - Award of - Legality of.

Insurance company denying liability for compensation claiming that driver’s licence was fake, vehicle was being used as a goods carrier and it was carrying passengers and therefore terms of policy were violated-District Forum dismissing claim for compensation and recording that licence was fake and accepting evidence on the other two counts as well- State Commission, while recording that licence was fake, directing grant of compensation on basis that owner could not have had the knowledge that licence was fake and if passengers did not contribute to accident their presence would not absolve insurer. National Commission rejected the revision application of the insurer by holding that it is now clear that Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, is inapplicable in cases where an accident does not involve third parties and where original driver’s licence is fake, its renewal does cannot make it valid. District Forum and State Commission having recorded that driving licence was fake, State Commission erred in granting compensation- Order of District Forum restored. – Contract and Specific Relief – Termination/Discharge of Contract – Breach of condition – Contract Act, 1872 – S.73 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 149, 147, 3, 6, 9 and 15 – Insurance – Repudiation of claim – Breach of condition – Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss. 2(10 (o) & (g) and S. 21.”

13.              As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

M/s. Onkar Logistics Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.                CC/20/199

Present:       Sh. Ankur Ghai, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:24.07.2023.

Gobind Ram.