BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh. Tek Chand, resident of House No.1122, Sector 49B, Pushpac Complex, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.1, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.133-134-135, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Ranjneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant got  his  2002 model second hand Maruti Zen car bearing registration No.CH04-B-4076 insured with the OP for the period from 21.6.2008 to 20.6.2009 on payment of premium of Rs.4,622/- and Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was stated to be Rs.1,30,000/-. The car met with an accident on the intervening night of 20/21.8.2009 between Nawanshar and Banga when he was coming from Amritsar and was badly damaged.  No FIR/DDR was recorded as a compromise was entered into between both the parties.  He called the OP as well as M/s C.M. Motors who advised him to tow the car to their garage at Ropar.   However, no spot survey was got done by the OP at Nawanshar and surveyor was sent at M/s C.M. Motors.  The representative of the OP visited the residence of the complainant after 10 days of accident and got the claim form signed. However, instead of finalizing the claim the OP through their letter dated 29.9.2009 informed the complainant that the claim was liable to be repudiated as the licence held by him was not valid for car/jeep.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case. It has been submitted that upon receipt of intimation Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma was appointed as surveyor and Loss Assessor who assessed the net liability of the answering OP on net of salvage basis to the tune of Rs.74,500/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It has been specifically denied that the damage caused to the car resulted in total loss of the car. However it has been pleaded that upon verification of the licence it was found that the same was not valid for driving car and, therefore, vide letter dated 29.9.2009 the complainant was informed that his claim was not payable and was requested to explain the status of his driving licence within 15 days, but no reply was received. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The claim was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the complainant was not authorized to drive a car.  The complainant has however produced Annexure C-4 which is the copy of the driving licence showing that he was authorized to drive scooter/motorcycle, car/jeep only.  The Learned Counsel argued that since the complainant was entitled to drive the car, the OPs could not repudiate the claim.

6.             Before repudiating the claim, the investigator appointed by the OPs obtained a report now marked Annexure R-4/A from the Licencing Authority and attached the same with his own report Annexure R-4 to the effect that the driving licence was valid for motorcycle and scooter only.  The Licencing authority has given the verification report Annexure R-4/A showing that the said driving licence was issued on 11.08.1997 but it was issued for scooter/motorcycle only.  The complainant did not produce any document to contradict the same.  However, on the asking of this Forum, the complainant obtained the report dated 11.02.2010 now marked Annexure C-7 in which also the Registration and Licencing Authority, U.T., Chandigarh reported that the driving licence was issued for driving of scooter/motorcycle only. In view of this report which comes from the official record to which presumption of truth is attached, we cannot say if the complainant was issued licence for driving car/jeep.

7.             There is yet another reason supporting this fact. Annexure C-4 copy of the driving licence shows that it was issued on 11.08.1997.  The date of birth of the complainant is 28.01.1979 meaning thereby that he was just 18 years and 6 months old, when he obtained the driving licence.  The car however was purchased by the complainant on 2.01.2008 as is clear from the certificate of registration Annexure C-3.  Since the complainant was not having any car, he therefore did not need a driving licence to drive a car.  It is of common knowledge that the students generally go on motorcycles/scooters and therefore require a licence to drive the same.

8.             The complainant has not produced any evidence to suggest if he ever applied to the Licencing Authority for issuance of licence for driving a car/jeep.  The complainant knew from the beginning that his claim has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that he was not entitled as per the report of the Licencing Authority to drive a car. He therefore could have produced the application form submitted to the office of the Licencing Authority for obtaining a licence but he did not. This fact also suggests that the complainant had never requested for issuing a driving licence to drive a car, eventually no authorization to drive a car could have been issued to him.

9.             The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that there is no report produced by the OP to suggest if driving licence number 290501 was not issued in favour of the complainant on 11.08.1997.  This fact is rather admitted by all concerned.  However, the only question which is in dispute is whether the said driving licence was issued for driving scooter/motorcycle or it was for driving car/jeep also.  The mere fact that the Licencing Authority reported that driving licence number 290501 dated 11.08.1997 was issued by it, does not mean that any interpolation made therein and the addition of the type of vehicle i.e. car/jeep would validate the interpolations.

10.           The complainant has not produced any such evidence to suggest if the driving licence held by him has not been tampered with.  In these days of advanced technology, it is not difficult to prepare similar copies of the driving licence by making any addition in the type of vehicle mentioned earlier.  The copies if so prepared would bear the same number and date with all the particulars as on the original licence except the addition of the type of vehicle.   The complainant could get the driving licence examined from Forensic Science Laboratory to suggest if the driving licence held by him was the original and the type of vehicle was already mentioned therein from the very beginning.  He however did not lead any such evidence to prove the genuineness of the driving licence in his possession.  In its absence we cannot say that the driving licence copy of which is Annexure C-4 is a genuine document.

11.           There are two reports regarding the driving licence, one is Annexure R-4/A and the other now marked Annexure C-7.  In both these reports it is mentioned that the driving licence was issued to the complainant only for driving scooter/motorcycle.  Both these reports were made by the concerned officials from the official records maintained by them. A presumption of truth is attached to the said record, whereas the driving licence copy of which is Annexure C-4 produced by the complainant is not proved to have been issued by the Licencing Authority and no presumption of truth is attached to this document.  The advancement of technology has reached at such a stage that even currency notes can be printed and circulated in the market bearing the signatures of the Governors. Nobody except Bank Authorities can distinguish the counterfeit currency notes from the genuine notes.  Annexure C-4 does not even require that much expertise for preparing a copy of the driving licence.

12.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the decision taken by the OP, repudiating the claim cannot be said to be devoid of merit.  There is no deficiency in service on their part.  There is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

13.           Since the case requires thorough evidence examination of the driving licence through Forensic Science Laboratory or handwriting expert and detailed examination of the officials of the Licencing Authority as well as the complainant, if the complainant so chooses, he is free to agitate the matter before the Civil Court. Even a criminal case can be registered because forgery at some stage is clearly made out.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.