CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/563/15
Date of Institution:- 16.11.2015
Order Reserved on:- 03.04.2024
Date of Decision:- 13.05.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Varuna Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorised Representative
Plot No.572, Sector 37, Pace City-II,
Opposite Pearl Honda Service Centre,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
National Insurance Company Limited
Through its Branch Manager
R/oVardhan Entrance Plaza,
First Floor, Plot No.1,
Pocket 6, Nasirpur Block,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110045
.…..Opposite Party
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatcomplainant has executed GPA dated 25.09.2013in favour of its AR so complaint is filed through its AR. On 24.10.2011, complainant has purchased Traffic Accident Policy Group no.361483/48/11/200000466 dated 24.10.2011 from OP under which 777 driver of the complainant company were covered. The OP shall provide Rs.1 lakh to the complainant in case the driver of the complainant company dies or suffer injuries during road accident. The driver Rahis Khan has died in the road accident on 23.02.2012. The claim was filed vide claim no.361802/48/13/21/90000031 with relevant documents. The OP did not settle the claim which has caused harassment to the family member of the deceased. A legal notice dated 04.06.2015 was served upon the OP but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP has filed the WS with the preliminary objection like cause of action, concealment of facts, malafide intention and complainant is not a consumer and detailed examination of witness is required to decide the issue.On merits, it is averred that policy in question was issued to the complainant. The liability of OP is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver/deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident which led to the repudiation of the claim and communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 30.09.2015. There is no merit in the complaint.
- The complainant has filed the replication wherein he has denied the averments of the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the complaint.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed the affidavit of Sh. Yogesh Chandra, Attorney Holder of the complainant wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documentsEx.CW-1/1 to CW1/9 though exhibits are not put on the documents.
- The OPhas filed the affidavit of Ms. RoshniPatil, AR, in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.RW-1/1 i.e. insurance policy and Ex.RW1/2 i.e. verification report of DL.
- We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
- The perusal of the record shows that certain facts like issuance of policy in question, deceased was not the driver of the complainant, deceased has expired in the accident and claim was lodged by the complainant are not in dispute.
- The OP has rejected the claim on the premise that deceased was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident thought the complainant company has annexed driving license bearing DL No.51238/TV/MON/2010 dated 19.03.2010 issued by DTO, MON, Dimapur, Nagaland along with the verification from the DTO, MON, Nagaland that categories like MMV/HMV was added on 17.06.2011 which is shown as Ex.CW1/3 in the affidavit.
- The OP has filed one letter issued to the counsel for the OP that DL of the deceased was verified from Mathura Authority which was found fake.
- The OP has not annexed alleged DL as well as verification report from Mathura Authority with the reply or affidavit filed in evidence. The complainant has relied upon the license issued by DTO, MON, Nagaland. The OP should have verified this license which has not been done. It is not the case of the OP that deceased was having two driving licenses out of which one was allegedly found fake.
- The OP has not produced the best possible evidence in its possession. The non-production of the best possible evidence calls for an adverse inference against the OP. The version of the OP that DL of the deceased was found fake cannot be relied upon in the absence of documents on record.
- The rejection of the claim in the presence of DL issued by the competent authority tantamount to deficiency in service.
- In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP shall pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh along with an interest @7% from the date of accident i.e. 23.02.2012till its realization. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 13.05.2024.