Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 468.
Instituted on : 12.09.2019
Decided on :15.01.2024.
Dalbir Singh age 53 years son of Sh. Prem Singh r/o Village Riwara Tehsil Gohana District Sonipat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Company Ltd., DO-1, Rohtak service to be effected through Divisional Manager, Rohtak/Quilla Road Rohtak.
- Yogesh Jain s/o Sh. Sushil Jain Shop no.25-26, Ashoka Plaza, Ground Floor, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.J.S.Ahlawat, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is owner of vehicle no.HR-69C-9927 and he got the same insured with the opposite party No.1 through opposite party no.2 vide policy no.420300/31/17/6300001212 for the period from 17.06.2017 to 16.06.2018. On 12.02.2018 the alleged vehicle was being driven by the driver JagbirSingh and the same was met with an accident. An FIR No.102 was registered in P.S.Thara District Kanpur. In the said accident, the vehicle of the complainant was completely damaged. The vehicle was taken to Global Auto Mobile Rohtak. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties and spot survey was conducted by the opposite party. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.1412744/- on the repair of his vehicle. Complainant filed the claim with the opposite parties and completed all the formalities as required by the opposite parties. But till today, the amount of claim has not been paid to the complainant. The opposite party issued a letter dated 13.12.2018 to the effect that driving license of one Ajay son of Rattan Singh issued from RTO Agra was found fake. The complainant has no concern with the license of said Ajay as the name of driver of complainant was Jagbir who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, who was having a valid license at the time of accident. The vehicle was also financed by the complainant from HDFC Bank and due to non payment of claim, the complainant is suffering huge financial loss. Complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the claim amount but the opposite parties flatly refused for the same. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.1412744.62/- alongwith interest @ 14% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization to the complainant and also to pay Rs.2 lac on account unnecessary harassment and financial loss and Rs.33000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the driving license of Jagbir Singh who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident is fake. The same was verified from RTO Agra where the license was originally issued. Thus the owner of the vehicle knowingly employed such a person as driver who has no valid and effective D.L. There is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also violation of Sec.3 of M.V. Act, therefore the claim is not maintainable and ‘No Claim’was passed in this case on dated 12.03.2019. It is further submitted that Sh.J.K.DunejaSurveyor and loss assessor assessed the net loss recommended on repair cash loss basis of Rs.1050000/- as full and final settlement of claim. There is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any claim. On merits, it is submitted that at the time of accident Jagbir Singh was driving the vehicle in question. But the old D.L.No.535/AG/2004 of Jagbir Singh originally issued from RTO Agra is in the name of Ajay Singh s/o Rattan Singh and not in the name of Jagbir Singh. Thus the D.I. of Jagbir Singh is fake. Thus the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, opposite party no.2 was given up by the complainant vide his separately recorded statement dated 12.08.2021.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on 12.08.2021. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 04.10.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 13.12.2018 placed on record as Ex.C3. As per this letter the driving license of Sh. Ajay Kumar son of Sh. Rattan Singh was found originally fake from RTO Agra. We have minutely perused the document placed on record by the insurance company i.e. driving license verification report issued by Licensing Authority Jind as Ex.R3. On the bottom of this page the licensing authority written the contents of the license of Jagbir Singh s/o Chhater Singh. As per this report driving license of Jagbir Singh bearing no.533/AG104 was renewed on 18.06.2007. As per this report the license of Jagbirsingh was originally issued by Licensing Authority Agra(UP) vide license no.535/AG104. Manning thereby the originally this license was issued by the Licensing Authority Agra vide License no.535/AG104. The insurance company also placed on record another document issued by Chandraraj Singh Chauhan Advocate Investigator of the insurance company as Ex.R2 with particulars of license No. DL535/AG/2004. As per this report the license no.535/AG/2004 was issued in the name of Sh. Ajay Singh s/o Ram Rattan . After perusal of both the licenses we came into conclusion that the ‘old driving license no.i.e 535/AG104’ was came into the knowledge of insurance company when they sought information from the licensing authority Jindalongwith the driving license of Jagbir s/oChhater Singh. Regarding this driving license verification, an application has been moved by the Jagbir on 31.12.2018 and he submitted this report with the insurance company whereas the insurance company took the verification of license no.535/AG/2004 on dated 07.09.2018. How they came to know that the license number of Jagbir was 535/AG/2004. In fact the perusal of Ex.R3 itself shows that the old license no. ofJagbir was 535/AG104 but the insurance company verified the license no.535/AG/2004 . So as per our opinion a different license no.535/AG/2004 has been verified by the insurance company from their investigator. In fact as per report Ex.R3 the license Number was 535/AG104. As such the document Ex.R2 cannot be believed. We have also perused the survey report Ex.R6/Ex.C11, as per which the surveyor has assessed the loss on 5 heads.
1. Assessment on repair basis : Rs.1739798/-
2. Assessment on total loss basis: Rs.3198500/-.
3. Assessment on NET of salvage loss basis with RC: Rs.2148500/-
4. Assessment on net of salvage loss basis without RC : Rs.2748500/-
5. Assessment on cash loss on repairs basis: Rs.1058058/-
6. We have minutely perused the head no. 5 i.e. Assessment on cash loss on repair basis, as per which insurance company has deducted the amount of Rs.353186.15 on account of 25% on cash loss indemnity. This amount has been wrongly deducted by the insurance company. As such as per our opinion complainant is entitled for Rs.1412744.62/- i.e. Rs.1412745/-(rounded off) on cash loss on repair basis.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay the claim amount of Rs.1412745/-(Rupees fourteen lac twelve thousand seven hundred and forty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.09.2019 to till its realization and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.01.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
