Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 106.

                                                          Instituted on     : 14.02.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 30.10.2018.

Rajesh son of Shri Krishan Chander resident of house No.856/19, Housing Board Colony, Jind, Age 40 years, Mb. 94160-60847.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

National Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak Division II, Narala Shopping complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.

……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of truck No.HR-46G-2938  which was insured with the opposite party vide policy No.421600/31/14/6300004931  w.e.f. 29.03.2015 to 28.03.2016. That on 17/18.12.2015 due to heavy fog, the said truck met with an accident That complainant duly informed the opposite party and the vehicle was got surveyed by the surveyor of opposite party who assessed the loss of Rs.75000/-. After repair also the vehicle was re-inspected by the deputed surveyor of the opposite party. That complainant applied for insurance claim with the opposite party but the opposite party sent a letter dated 12.10.2016 by which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the vexatious ground that no record of driving license has been found in DTO Tuensang(Nagaland). That the driver was having valid driving license issued by competent authority at the time of accident . That the act of opposite party of not disbursing the insurance claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.75000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in the relief clause to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that it is true that the surveyor and investigator were appointed by the opposite party who submitted their respective reports. That after perusal and verification of documents, it is found that the driver of the insured vehicle namely Gurbachan s/o Sh. Hardev Singh did not hold any driving license. The copy of driving license provided by the insured is checked in the record of the concerned DTO but no record has been found.  This fact shows that the DL of driver is fake one. That claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite party as the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident. That complainant is not entitled for any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          As per respondent officials the record of the license No.26096/TV/T/2011 has not been found available in the name of Sh. Gurbachan. After perusal of report Ex.R6, Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 we came to the conclusion that the respondent officials failed to prove that this license no.26096/TV/T/2011, was not ever been issued by the licensing authority, Tuensang, Nagaland and also not proved that this license was issued to any other person instead of Gurbanchan Singh. Merely on the ground that the record was not found it cannot be concluded that driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.

6.                          After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we come to the conclusion that the driver was holding valid and effective driving license at the time  of accident and as such we hereby allow the complaint. As per survey report Ex.R5 the loss is assessed as Rs.64500/-. As such it is directed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.64500/-(Rupees sixty four thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.14.02.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  

7.                         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:

30.10.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.