Haryana

Karnal

612/08

Jasbir Pal S/o Raj Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.R. Rana

27 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.612 of 2008

                                                               Date of instt. 01.10.2008

                                                               Date of decision:19 .08.2015

 

Jasbir Pal son of Sh.Raj Pal resident of Ainchala, Sub tehsil Balla district Karnal.

 

                                                           ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

National Insurance Co.Limited, vide policy No.420501/31/05/5300004297 valid from 8.11.2005 to 7.11.2006, Opp.General Bus stand, Karnal through its Branch Manager

                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…… Member.  

         

 Present:          Sh.N.R.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the averments that he was owner in possession of  Mahindera Max Vehicle bearing registration No. HR-45-7706, which was insured by the Opposite Party

 ( in short OP). The said Mahindera Max vehicle  met with an accident on 26.9.2006 as the driver of the canter moving ahead the said vehicle  applied sudden brakes  on account of emergence of Neel Gaon/cow  due to which the said vehicle dashed against the canter and front portion was damaged. The complainant informed the local police and OP regarding the accident. Surveyor was deputed by the OP in order to assess the loss.  On the asking of the surveyor, the complainant got repaired the insured vehicle from Gagan Motors, Karnal, who charged Rs.94322/- from him for repairs.  However, the OP has not made any payment to the complainant in respect of the repairs of the vehicle and vide letter dated 1.12.2006 sought some information, which was supplied by the complainant, but despite that no payment has been made.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action; that the complainant is not  a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant lodged the claim with the OP. Sh.Mahesh Kalra was appointed as surveyor, who submitted report on 30.10.2006 assessing the loss/damages to the vehicle as Rs.74085.31 less salvage value of Rs.7500/-. OP asked the complainant to submit certain documents, vide letters dated 2.11.2006, 1.12.2006 and 18.12.2006, but the legible copy of the driving licence   No. C94020345 alongwith original driving licence was not supplied despite various reminders. Therefore, claim of the complainant was not processed and he cannot be allowed to take benefit of  his own wrongs. As  and when the complainant would supply the legible copy as well as original driving licence No. C No.94020345 to the OP, his claim would be processed on merits. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he filed his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.

 

4.                On the other hand, in the evidence of the OP, affidavit of Shri R.K.Sharma, Branch Manager, Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O8 have been filed.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file  very carefully.

 

6.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that  Mahindra Max vehicle bearing registration No. HR-45/7706 was insured with the OP and the same met with an accident. OP appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss/damages. As per case of the complainant Hazara Singh son of Sukhbir Singh resident of Ghogripur district Karnal was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. However, the OP has  submitted that legible copy of the driving licence and original licence bearing No. C94020345 were not supplied by the complainant to the OP. 

 

7.                              During course of arguments, the Learned counsel for the complainant had shown driving licence, but only the number the of the said driving licence was visible and the other matter  was not decipherable.  The number of the said driving licence is No.C94020345, and  purported to have been issued by Motor Licensing Authority, Loni, Delhi.

 

8.                         The Learned counsel for the OP has laid emphasis on the contention that driving licence of Hazara Singh son of Sukhbir Singh who was driving the Mahindera Max vehicle  at the time of accident was fake as  is evident from the report Ex.C8 submitted by Motor Licensing Authority,  (North East Zone) Loni Road, Delhi.  As the vehicle was not being driven by the person having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the  complainant violated the condition of the insurance policy, therefore,  insurer is not liable to indemnify the complainant.

 

9.                          To wriggle out of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that concerned Licensing Authority, has not  been summoned by the OP to prove that the DL No. C94020345 was not issued in favour of Hazara Singh son  Sukhbir  Singh r/o  Ghogripur district Karnal, therefore, the OP has not been able to establish that driver, who was driving the  said Mahindera Max  vehicle  at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and as such the OP cannot escape from  its liability to indemnify the complainant.

 

10.                            The complainant in the complaint as well as affidavit Ex.C1 submitted that his Mahindera Max vehicle was being driven by Hazara Singh son of Sukhbir  Singh r/o Ghogripur district Karnal at the time of accident. It is not disputed by the complaint that copy of  driving licence of Hazara Singh son of Sukhbir  Singh given by him  to the OP at the time of  submitting the claim form was bearing No. C94020345.  The  report of Motor   Licensing Authority, (North East Zone) Loni  Road, Delhi has been placed on the file as Ex.C8 which relates to the verification of  driving licences No.904020340 and 904020350.  The DL No. 904020345 has been mentioned at Sr.No.6 and the said driving licence was issued in favour of Kishore Kumar son of V.P.Pathak r/o IX, 4249, Ajeet Nagar, Delhi. Thus, from this document, it is abundantly clear that driving licence NO. C904020345 was not  issued in favour of Hazara Singh son of Sukhbir Singh r/o Ghogripur district Karnal, who was driving the Mahindera Max vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant has not produced any evidence worth the name, which may show that  said Hazara Singh  was having valid and  effective licence at the time of accident. Thus, it is established that driving licence of Hazara Singh was fake one, which is violation of the condition of the insurance policy regarding driving of the insured vehicle by the person having  valid and  and effective driving licence. Consequently,  the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Therefore, it cannot be said  in any manner that there was deficiency in services on the part of the OP while denying the claim of the complainant.

 

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the epresent complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due complliance.

 

Announced
dated:19.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

             

  (Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.

 

 

 

Present:          Sh.N.R.Rana Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:19.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

             

  (Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)

          Member.           Member.