Punjab

Moga

CC/15/49

Mewa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Chander Kant Sahni

13 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 49 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 24.07.2015

                                                  Decided On: 13.11.2015

 

Mewa Singh aged 43 years s/o Gurdev Singh s/o Arjun Singh, resident of Village Machhike, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kotkapura Road, Baghapurana, District Moga, through its Manager.

 

Opposite Party

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

Present:     Sh.Chander Kant Sahni, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh.Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate Cl. for opposite party.  

 

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kotkapura Road, Baghapurana, District Moga, through its Manager (herein-after referred to as opposite party)- directing them to pay Rs.6,02,000/- or any other amount which this Forum may deem fit alongwith interest from 11.11.2014 till its actual realization @ 15% p.a. and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony to the complainant or any other relief.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing no.PB03Z-9442 of Tata Company, model no.4018. The complainant got the abovesaid truck insured with opposite party vide insurance policy no.406024311410000287 dated 22.04.2014 w.e.f 23.04.2014 to 22.04.2015. The abovesaid truck of the complainant met with an accident on 11.11.2014 and intimation of the said accident was given to opposite party. Thereafter, opposite party appointed A.K.Enterprises, Ludhiana as its surveyor, who reported that there is loss of Rs.6,02,000/- vide letter dated 27.11.2014. It was observed by the surveyor that estimated value of liability of the opposite party to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/-. Balbir Singh s/o Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Machhike was driving the truck at the time of accident. But instead of making payment to the complainant, the opposite party wrongly and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 8.7.2015 on the ground that driving license of Balbir Singh Driver was not genuine. However, the opposite party is levelling false, baseless and wrong allegations just to escape from the their liability. On verification the driving license of Balbir Singh driver was found to be genuine which was renewed by the Transport Department. It does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to level such false allegation just to escape their liability to make payment of the claim. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel Sh.Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands; complainant has concealed and suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that Mewa Singh complainant got insured his truck no.PB-03-Z-9442 with the opposite party for the period w.e.f 23.04.2014 to 22.04.2015. The truck in dispute met with an accident on 11.11.2014. The truck was driven by Sh.Balvir Singh s/o Gurdev Singh at the time of accident. The complainant informed the opposite party regarding the accident and own damage claim of the truck in dispute and submitted the documents and driving license no.PB2920080015293 of Balvir Singh son of Gurdev Singh resident of Village Machhike with the opposite party. After receiving the documents from the complainant, the opposite party appointed investigator Sh.Manoj Goyal, Sh.Sukhwinder Singh Notra and Sh.Didar Singh Rooprai to investigate/verify the Driving License no.PB2920080015293 of Sh.Balvir Singh son of Sh.Gurdev Singh resident of village Machhike. Sh.Manoj Goyal, Surveyor and Investigator submitted his verification report dated 17.12.2014 and reported that said license was renewed for 5.01.2012 to 4.01.2015 for transport and 14.4.2020 for non-transport and old number of driving license was 35648/08M and this license was renewed for 2.1.2008 to 1.1.2011 and reported that the old number of the driving license to be 5446/R/HSP/26.5.2004. The report of surveyor Sukhwinder Singh Notra dated 16.1.2015 reveals that the driving license number 5446/R/HSP/26.8.2004 stood in the name of Balvir Singh son of Gurdev Singh valid for 26.8.2004 to 25.08.2007 and was renewed from the old driving license no.2418/R/NSR/00-01. Sh.Didar Singh Rooprai Surveyor deputed to verify the license no.2418/R/NSR/00-01 was issued in favour of Ram Dass S/o Mehar Chand resident of Mohan Majra valid from 2.2.2001 to 1.2.2004. The said driving license has not been issued in favour of Balvir Singh. Thus, it is clear from the above said reports that Balvir Singh driver of the truck is not having a valid driving license. If the original license is fake, subsequent renewal will not make it valid & genuine. The opposite party also appointed surveyor A.K.Enterprises, Ludhiana to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.3,78,934.60p and he further suggested to deduct Rs.28,934.60p on account of salvage as the salvage is the property of insurance company and he assessed the loss net to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As the driving license of Balvir Singh driver is fake and forged, the opposite party is not liable to pay the claim. On merits, the contents of all other paras of the complaint have been denied.

5.                In his evidence, the complainant Mewa Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

6.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. P.K.Mangla, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-11 and affidavit of Manoj Goyal Ex.OP-12, affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh Notra Ex.OP-13, affidavit of Didar Singh Rooprai Ex.OP-14 and affidavit of Ashok Chawla Ex.OP-15 and document Ex.OP-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that it is not disputed that truck bearing registration no.PB-03Z-9442 of Tata Company belonging to the complainant was admittedly insured with opposite party vide insurance policy no.406024311410000287 dated 22.04.2014 w.e.f 23.04.2014 to 22.04.2015, copy of the insurance policy accounts for Ex.C-3. It is also not denied that the truck of the complainant met with an accident on 11.11.2014 and on receiving the information, the opposite party appointed A.K.Enterprises as its surveyor, who reported a loss to the tune of Rs.6,02,000/- vide letter dated 27.11.2014, copy whereof is Ex.C-4. It was also observed by the surveyor that estimated value of liability of the opposite party was to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/-. It is also not disputed that at the time of accident Balbir Singh Driver was driving the truck. However, opposite party wrongly and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driving license of Balbir Singh was not genuine, vide letter dated 8.7.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C-5. On the other hand, the verification of driving license of Balbir Singh was made by the insurance company itself and the driving license of Balbir Singh was found to be genuine, copy of the verification report accounts for Ex.C7. It does not lie in the mouth of opposite party to level such false allegations in order to escape from their liability. It is contended that complainant is entitled to Rs.6,02,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of accident until actual realization and the complaint may be allowed accordingly.

                   It is further contended that for the sake of arguments, even, if it is presumed that driving license of Balbir Singh driver was fake, even then the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated. The complainant at the time of appointing Balbir Singh driver has inspected the driving license held by Balbir Singh. It was not required for him to investigate the record of the licensing authority for ascertaining the genuineness of the license. Reliance has been placed on judgement United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Surjit Singh Sodhi- 2001 (2) Latest Judicial Reports 832 (P & H).

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has vehemently contended that claim of the complainant has been legally and validly repudiated by the opposite party, because the driving license of driver Balbir Singh was found to be fake. He has referred to verification report Ex.OP-8 submitted by Didar Singh Ruprai, Investigator, wherein it is stated that original driving license bearing no.2418/R/NSR/00-01 belonged to Ram Dass s/o Mehar Chand, Village & PO Sohan Majra, Tehsil Balachaur, District NawanShahr. Subsequent renewal of the license made from DTO Hoshiarpur and DTO Moga cannot validate the driving license of Balbir Singh Driver. Once the original driving license was fake subsequent validation made from DTO Hoshiarpur and DTO Moga was inconsequential and therefore, the driving license, which was in the name of Balbir Singh Driver was not genuine. As such, the claim has been rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 8.7.2015, copy whereof is Ex.OP2 on record. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Since the terms and conditions of insurance policy repairs that driving license of the driver should have been valid at the time of accident and those terms and conditions were material and go to the root of the claim. Since the complainant has failed to prove that the driving license of Driver Balvir Singh was legal and valid at the time of accident, therefore, no fault cannot be found in repudiation made by the opposite party. It is contended that complaint may be dismissed accordingly with costs.

10.              We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

11.              From the perusal of the record, it becomes evident that originally driving license was issued by the licensing authority Nawan Shahr, which was in the name of Ram Dass s/o Mehar Chand R/o Mohan Majra. However, the license in the name of Balbir Singh s/o Gurdev Singh was not the original license, it was got renewed from DTO office, Hosiarpur and Moga respectively and original number of the licensing authority of NawanShahr finds mentioned in the renewed license, which was in the name of Ram Dass s/o Mehar Chand R/o MohanMajra. Once the original license was not in the name of Balbir Singh, Driver, subsequent renewal made from the DTO Office, Hosiarpur and Moga respectively will not validate the driving license in favour of Balbir Singh Driver of the truck in dispute. This question came for hearing before Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Mnager, Pali, Rajasthan- Petitioner Versus Bhika Khan S/o Rafique Khan R/o Marwar Junction, District Pali, Rajasthan- Respondent in Revision Petition no.144 of 2008, decided on 29.05.2012, wherein it was laid down that "As a point of law, we have no manner of doubt that a fake license cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any Licensing Authority to "renew a driving license issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry". No Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake license and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake license as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine", while relying upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Laxmi Narain Dhut- (2007) 3 SCC 700, in which, it was held that it is well settled law that valid renewals cannot validate a fake license. If a fake license is renewed, it will still remained fake. Supreme Court as well as State Commission in various judgments where the owner had engaged a driver after verifying the fact that he had a driving license which turned out to be fake later on, has held that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to reimburse the loss rejecting the contention raised by the complainant that since he had appointed the driver after verifying the fact that the driver had a license he could not be denied the benefit arising under the policy and the order of the State Commission was set aside and the Revision Petition was allowed accordingly.  

12.              Since the driving license of Balbir Singh driver was found to be fake, therefore, the opposite party was justified in rejecting the claim of the complainant, because valid driving license of the driver is a condition precedent for allowing the own damage insurance claim of the complainant. In view of the law, relied upon by the counsel for the opposite party, the law relied upon and referred by the counsel for the complainant does not hold good. As such, the authority titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Surjit Singh Sodhi 'supra' has no application to the facts of the present case.

13.              Consequently, the instant complaint fails and same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                              (Vinod Bala)                 (S.S. Panesar)

                              Member                           President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:13.11.2015.