Complainant Jatinder Pal Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to make payment of insurance claim of the damaged vehicle alongwith interest @  18% Per annum from the date of due till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay   compensation alongwith Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of Volkswagen Polo 1.2 Tredline Diesel Car bearing Registration No.PB-35-P-3262 and insured the same vide policy No.401500/31/14/6100009157 which is valid from 19.2.2015 to 18.2.2016. On 7.4.2015 he was driving the abovesaid vehicle and was going towards village Jandwal and the same vehicle met with an accident in the area of Mamoon Chowk, Pathankot and the vehicle was totally damaged. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Local Police as well as to the opposite party and as per instructions of the opposite party, he has submitted all the necessary/relevant documents to the opposite party as and when demanded. But the opposite party have procrastinated the matter pending with one pretext or the other. He has next pleaded that the opposite party has repudiated his claim vide letter dated 27.11.2015 in which the opposite party has falsely alleged that earlier he has submitted Driving Licence with the opposite party which was found fake and the new one license is also fake one since the basic is found fake. Actually, at no point of time, he has submitted his earlier Driving License which is legal, valid and genuine one bearing Driving License No.PB-35-19990096018 dated 25.3.1999, which was duly verified by District Transport Office, Pathankot vide its report dated 21.12.2015. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that immediately after the information regarding damage to the vehicle was given to the insurance company, the surveyor was detailed to assess the loss. The complainant was asked to supply all the documents including the driving license. The license supplied by the complainant was found to be fake after the verification. The complainant was informed accordingly and was given 7 days time to clarify his position. The complainant supplied second driving license. That too was found not genuine after the verification. Hence the claim was repudiated. The verification report dated 21.12.2015 if any has been manipulated therefore the same is not accepted and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the company of any of its employees. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of  Subash Chander Addl. Branch Manager  Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the complainant’s accident claim repudiation (Ex.C4/Ex.OP2 of 27.11.2015) by the OP insurers alleging serious breach of the Policy’s Driver Clause since both the complainant-submitted DLs (Driving Licenses) were found fake upon verification with the issuing authority. The OP insurers, in order to prove/support its allegation, have produced (Ex.OP3) the investigator’s letter of 26.11.2015 advising therein that Sh.Deepak Kumar Clerk in the O/o DTO, Pathankot has remarked upon the query letter (Ex.OP4) that Basic DL # 6852/P/98-99 was not issued in the complainant’s name (as per office record) and further the replaced copy vide # PB 351990096018 of 07.09.2015 has been false. We find that the OP insurers could not produce a copy of the DL # 6852/P/98-99 alleged to have been submitted by the complainant nor could produce any evidence to establish submission of said DL by the complainant. Moreover, it is not understood as to why a genuine Holder of DL # PB351990096108 will submit a fake DL with # 6852/P/98-99 or a fake copy of Driving License to vitiate his otherwise a genuine insurance claim. Thus, we find that the OP insurers have failed to prove its allegation of fake DL (Driving License) by the complainant to form the basis of its impugned repudiation.

7.       On the other hand, the complainant has produced the original remark/ report (Ex.C11) duly confirming the genuineness of the issuance of the DL # PB351990096018 in the name of the complainant and has also produced/ summoned Dalip Kumar Jr. Asstt. O/o the DTO (with office records) who officially confirmed the genuineness of the Complainant’s DL as per the copy (Ex.C12) and also as per the remarks report (Ex.C11). To sum it up all, we find that the OP insurers have arbitrarily repudiated the insurance claim in question and have since failed to produce any cogent evidence to support their above allegation forming the grounds/basis of repudiation and in its absence these shall amount to ‘bald’ statements, only. Thus, the OP insurers’ impugned repudiation of the insurance claim does not entail legality under the applicable law and need be set aside. However we also find that complainant as well as OP has failed to prove total loss of insured vehicle in the said accident. No bill/estimate of repairs issued by the authorized service centre of the accidented vehicle has been placed on records by the complainant nor any surveyor   report is filed by the OP to show if the vehicle is a total loss or not and in their absence it is difficult to decide the present complaint finally at this stage.   

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to decide/settle the impugned insurance accident claim afresh (but duly limited by the terms of the related Policy) and in accordance with the above findings besides to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation (for the harassment inflicted) and as cost (of litigation) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.             

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                       President

ANNOUNCED:                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

August, 17 2016.                                            Member                                   

*MK*