Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/96

Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mk Dhingra

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROOPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No. 96 of 2022

Date of Institution:          : 27.06.2022

           Date of Decision            :  24.3.2023

 

Madan Lal son of Sh. Ram, resident of Village Sangatpura now resident of Ward No. 1, Satluj Colony, Haveli Kalan near Gurudwara Ropar, Tehsil and District Ropar, Punjab.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.       New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nangal Chowk, Ropar through its Branch Manager.

2.       The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Ropar, Office 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai.

           

                                                                         …..Opposite parties

 

(Complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For complainant                       :         Sh.M.K.Dhigra, Advocate

For OPs                                   :         Sh.Jaskaran Singh, Advocate

                            

Per : KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.                 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle no. PB-13-BM-6007. The complainant has obtained insurance policy bearing no. 3612013120900000625 which was valid from 25.05.2021 to 24.05.2024.  The complainant was going on Ludhiana-Malerkotla Road on 28.08.2021 and about 3.00 PM when reached near Ahmed Nursery, Kup Khurd the said car met with an accident. The car was driven by Gaganpreet Kuashik at the material time of the accident and accident was captured by CCTV  which shows that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by Gaganpreet Kaushik and car was badly damaged during the validity period of insurance policy.  The damaged car was towed and delivered to authorized dealer of Honda i.e. Lally Motor Private Limited, Dhandari Kalan Ludhiana for repair and complainant paid towing charges of Rs. 2500/- for this purpose.  The complainant got repaired the vehicle in question from authorized dealer i.e. Lally Motor Pvt. Ltd Ludhiana and paid Rs.1,95,313/- towards cost of repair.  Information to this effect was provided to OPs but OPs did not settle the claim of the complainant and wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle in question was driven by Madan Lal, who was not holding valid driving licence but in fact  vehicle was driven by Gaganpreet Kaushik  and he had holding valid driving licence. Investigator deputed by OPs and he got verified the same from the competent authority.   The investigator recorded the statements of Nazir Mohammad, Gaganpreet Kaushik, Madan Lal , Arshdeep Sharma in order to ascertain the fact of driving of vehicle in question by Gaganpreet Kaushik at the time of accident but OPs wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 09.02.2022.  The complainant approached OPs number of times and completed all the formalities  and requested OPs  to release the amount of claim i.e. repair of cost i.e. Rs.1,95,313/- and towing charges Rs.2500/-, but OPs are putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,97,813/- including towing charges along with interest @ 18%, besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. On merits, it was averred  that the car of the complainant met with an accident and claim was lodged with OPs.  It was denied that the vehicle in question driven by Gaganpreet Kaushik  at the time of accident and there is nothing in CCTV footage to show that the vehicle was driven by Gaganpreet Kaushik.  The vehicle in question driven by Madan Lal himself  at the time of accident  and claim intimation letter dated 02.09.2021 duly signed by the complainant and he did not possess the valid and effective driving licence.  The complainant is trying  to change the driver just to extract undue compensation from the OPs.  The claim of the complainant has rightly repudiated by OPs  vide letter dated 09.02.2022  as complainant Madan Lal was not competent to drive the car in question. OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Pal Kalotra as Ex.OP-2/A and closed the evidenc.e

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

5.                 It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant in question met with an accident 28.08.2021. The vehicle in question insured with OPs, vide copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2 on the record.  The complainant paid Rs.2500/- as towing charges, this fact is clear from copy of receipt Ex.C-3 on the record. Ex.C-5 is copy of driving licence issued in the name of Gaganpreet Kaushik on 26.07.2019 and valid till 25.07.2039. The complainant written letters to OPs regarding setting his accidental claim vide Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8. Ex.C-10 is copy of report from Lally Motors to Manager of Assurance Company/OPs  with regard to actual driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident. As per report of Lally Motors , the vehicle in question was actually driven by Gaganpreet Kaushik.  Ex.C-11 is copy of motor claim form submitted by complainant with OPs. OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter Ex.C-12 on the record. OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that Madan Lal complainant was driven the vehicle at the time of accident.

6.                 The main controversy involved in the case in hand is whether the vehicle in question driven by Gaganpreet Kaushik or Madal Lal complainant.? We have peruse claim form which is placed on record at page 57 of the case file. This claim form submitted by the complainant Madan Lal himself. In this claim form , name of driver at the time of accident mentioned as Madan Lal instead of Gaganpreet Kaushik.  This claim form was also signed by Madan Lal in English Language, it seems that Madan Lal is an educated person and he signed the claim form after going through the same.  We have also perused the report of Investigator Krish Associates, this Investigator also mentioned in his report that Madan Lal complainant is not eligible to drive the car as he is having driving licence for MCWG which is not valid for driving the car.  On the basis of the documents submitted to the surveyor  and as per claim form, Madal Lal complainant was driving the car instead of Gagangpreet Kaushik. We are of the view that  after coming to know the fact that  Madan Lal is not having valid driving licence to drive the car as he is eligible to drive MCWG, the insured tried to manipulate  Gaganpreet Kaushik was driving the vehicle  at the time of accident. We have also peruse the intimation letter which is placed on record at page 98 of the case file, the intimation letter is also signed by Madan Lal complainant. We have also peruse the survey report of Yogesh Kochhar, which is placed on record at page 99 of the case file, in this report, the name of driver mentioned as Madal Lal. As per claim form and intimation letter Madan Lal son of Ram was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.  At the time of survey, while going through the DL particulars , it was observed that  the DL is valid only for MCWG. Report of surveyor is vital document in the case in hand. Apex Court has also examined  this point in "United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others versus Roshal Lal Oil Mills Ltd and others", reported in 2000(10) SCC 19 CPC 340 , wherein it has been held that surveyor is appointed under Section 64 UM(2) of Insurance Act. The surveyor giving detailed amount of factors on the basis of which conclusion was reached. Similarly, National Commission has held in "New India Insurance Company versus Ashok" reported in 2011(2) CPJ 255  that report by surveyor is an important piece of evidence and it should be relied upon.  The appointment of the surveyor is statutory under Insurance Act 1938 and his report can be discarded only on strong evidence to rebut it. We find from perusal of entire evidence of the complainant on the record that there is no reason to discard the report of the surveyor.

7.                 In the light of our above discussion, we are of the considered view that OPs rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant alleged in his complaint that Gaganpreet Kaushik drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident but in claim form and intimation letter, complainant mentioned the name of driver at the time of accident Madan Lal (complainant) instead of Gaganpreet Kaushik. It seems that complainant wrongly mentioned the name of Gaganpreet Kaushik for settling the claim with OPs. As such, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

8. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

 

Dated         :24.3.2023                               (Kuljit Singh)

                                                                      President

 

 

( Rakesh Kumar Gupta)                    

                                                                     Member