Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/577/2013

Manish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Comp. - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Rajouria

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                     Complaint No.577 of 2013.

                                                     Date of institution: 06/12.08.2013.

                                                     Date of decision: 24.10.2017.

Manish Kumar, age 23 years, son of Shri Vishwa Nath, resident of House No.853, Durga Garden, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional Office, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt., through its Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at Chhoti Line, Behind Churth, New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager. 

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. V.K.Rajouria, Advocate, for complainant.   

                Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

1.             The complainant-Manish Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he purchased one Tata-ACE-HT bearing registration No.HR58A-5243 and got insured the same with the Op.  It is alleged that unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.04.2012 and an DDR rapat No.19 dt. 29.04.2012 was lodged in P.S.Badhni Kalan.  The vehicle of complainant was completely damaged.  Information regarding accident was given to the Op and claim number of the complainant was 2533311311210000141.  It is further alleged that inadvertently while filing the claim form, the name of driver was written as Dharamveer but as a matter of fact, the complainant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops to correct this mistake and the Ops stated that they shall verify the facts as-well-as originality of the driving licence of the complainant.  It is further alleged that a surveyor was appointed by the Ops and on the asking of surveyor, the complainant got repaired the vehicle in question from Pasco Motors, Dosarka and an amount of Rs.1,61,200/- was spent by the complainant on the repair of said vehicle and an amount of Rs.7500/- was also spent by the complainant in taking the vehicle from the accidental spot to the Pasco Motors, Dosarka.  It is further alleged that the complainant submitted all the repair bills and other required documents with the Ops and made several requests to the Ops to pass the claim but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay an amount of Rs.1,61,200/- which was spent by the complainant on the repair of vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and further to pay Rs.7500/- on account of charges given to Crane for taking the vehicle in question from the accidental place and further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that as per DDR lodged on 29.04.2012 with P.S.Badhani Kalan, Distt. Moga, the vehicle in question was being driven by Munish Kumar at the time of accident.  This fact was further endorsed by the Panchayat nama and other police record.  But in the motor claim form duly signed and submitted, the complainant has concealed this material information and mentioned that Dharambir was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  This concealment was violation of the principles of utmost good faith and due to this violation, the contract of insurance has become void abnitio.  Further, the driver of vehicle in question, at the time of alleged accident, Munish Kumar was having a driving licence not authorizing him to drive the class of vehicle he was driving at the time of accident.  Before repudiating the claim of complainant, an opportunity was given through registered letter dt. 15.03.2013 to give his comment within 10 days but the complainant failed to comply with the said letter of the Ops and finally, a registered AD letter dt. 29.03.2013 was again sent to the complainant by the Ops and the claim of complainant was repudiated.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavits Annexure-RW/A to Annexure-RW/D alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R13 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             On 12.05.2017, the case was fixed for final arguments but the ld. Counsel for Ops has moved an application for adducing additional evidence by way of production of verification of driving licence of complainant issued by Licensing Authority, Jagadhri.  Reply of the same has been filed by the complainant contesting it on the ground that no plausible reason has been given by the Ops for not bringing it earlier on record and that the verification report prepared by the Ops is fake and false.  Heard on the application.  For the proper adjudication of the case, the application for adducing additional evidence is allowed in view of the fact that no prejudice is being caused to either of the parties and that the said documents have been issued by a Public Authority.  Hence, the verification report is marked as Annexures R-14 and R-15. 

7.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

8.             After hearing ld. Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of record available on the file, the foremost question which arises before us for consideration is that whether the complainant was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and whether he is entitled for the claim or not?

                It is an admitted fact of both the parties that the complainant got insured the vehicle in question with the Ops and the said vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy.  It is also an admitted fact that an DDR rapat No.19 dt. 29.04.2012 was lodged in P.S. Badhni Kalan. The grievance of the complainant is that he lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  The complainant submitted an authority cited in 2007(4) RCR (Civil) page 111 (SC) titled as Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, wherein it has been held that “When a driver is holding a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’, he is competent to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle.”

                       On the other hand, the plea of the Ops is that they repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dt. 15.03.2013 on the two grounds i.e. 1. As per FIR lodged on 29.04.2012, P.S.Badhani Kalan, Distt. Moga, the vehicle No.HR58A-5243 was being driven by Sh. Munish Kumar s/o Sh. Vishwanath.  This fact was further endorsed by the Panchayat Nama.  But in the Motor Claim Form duly singed and submitted by the complainant, he has concealed this material information and mentioned that Sh. Dharambeer was the driver 2. The driver Sh. Munish Kumar was having a driving licence not authorized to drive the class of vehicle he was driving.  The Ops submitted an authority cited in 2017(2) CPJ page 22 (NC) titled as Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Vs. Annasaheb Bapurao Ghandure, wherein it has been held that “On date of accident, driver of vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle as no endorsement was made on his driving licence to the fact that he is permitted to drive transport vehicle also-Repudiation justified.”  Similarly, ld. Counsel for the Ops has also relied upon the case law reported in 2015(CLT) page 56 (NC) titled as Ajit Parshad Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that “Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section-6-Insurance claim-Driving Licence-Two driving licence-one licence found fake and other was valid-Owner did not conduct any test of driver to ascertain his competence to drive the vehicle before hiring him-The driver did possesses two driving licences which by itself was an offence being prohibited under the law-Revision dismissed.”

10.            We have perused the document Annexure-R13, which is claim form wherein the complainant disclosed the name of driver at the time of accident as Dharamveer, resident of Barsan, Tehsil Jagadhri, whereas during processing of claim, the complainant submitted his driving licence alleging that he was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident.  The complainant filed the present complaint on 06.08.2013 and in the pleadings of complaint, mentioned that he has driving licence bearing No.71311/NW/TV/2011 which is valid upto 09.01.2014.  In the evidence, the complainant has tendered the aforesaid driving licence, which is Annexure-C1.  We have perused the aforesaid driving licence bearing No.71311/NW/TV/2011, which was issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, vehicle of description NIC/LMV/LTV/HTV/HPV valid upto 09.01.2014.  The complainant has never submitted the aforesaid driving licence to the insurance company for verification of its genuineness.  The complainant has not placed on file any verification report regarding the aforesaid driving licence whether it is genuine or not.  At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that the driving licences are issued by the Licensing Authority under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act to an applicant, who reside or carry on any profession, or permanently or temporarily work in any office or reside in connection with any trade or business.  The driving licence in question allegedly has been issued by the Licensing Authority of Govt. of Nagaland which creates doubt about its genuineness as the complainant has not produced any such document from which it could be inferred that he had any residence temporarily or permanently or rented for any official purpose or any other purpose connected with trade, business or industry etc.  In the absence of such record, no reliance can be placed by this Forum on the alleged licence issued by Licensing Authority, Nagaland and in these circumstances, it cannot be ascertained whether the aforesaid driving licence is valid and effective one.  We have also perused the document Annexure-R14, which is verification report of Licensing Authority, Jagadhri regarding the licence bearing No.HR0220120080017 of Sh. Munish Kumar-complainant.  From the perusal of aforesaid report, it is clear that the date of issue of licence is 22.05.2012 and the same is valid upto 21.05.2032, vehicle authorized-Motor Cycle with Gear and LMV-NT-Car only.  The accident in question had occurred on 29.04.2012 and the aforesaid driving licence is valid from 22.05.2012, meaning thereby after the date of accident.  In these circumstances, it is crystal clear that on the date of accident, the complainant was not having valid and effective driving licence.  In case, this licence was valid and effective at the relevant time, then what was the necessity of obtaining second licence (Annexure-R6) by the complainant.  Further, from the perusal of verification report (Annexure R-14), it is evident that the driver of vehicle possessed two driving licence one issued by the Licensing Authority, Jagadhri and other issued by Licensing Authority, Nagaland.  The complainant has produced the licences before the insurance company at the time of processing of the claim which was issued by the Licensing Authority, Jagadhri after the occurrence of accident in question.  This act by itself is not justifiable on his part because holding of two driving licences is prohibited under the law.  In view of the facts discusses above as-well-as the case law titled as Ajit Parshad Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others (supra), the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The law submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.      

Announced in open court:

Dated: 24.10.2017.

                                                            (SATPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER