Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/233

Gurdeep singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Darshan Singh Adv.

20 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:233 dated 16.05.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 20.09.2023.

Gurdeep Singh S/o. Sh. Mohinder Singh, r/o. VPO Burj Hari Singh, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., having its Branch Off: Ludhiana Road, Raikot 141009 (Branch Code: 361102), District Ludhiana, Punjab; e-mail id:
2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., having its head office at New India Insurance Building, 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001, through its Chairman/Managing Director.                                                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Darshan Singh Lohatbaddi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Gurjeet Singh Kalyan, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of transport vehicle/truck bearing registration No.PB-13-Z-5656, which was got insured from opposite party No.1 at Raikot vide insurance policy No.36110231140100003499 valid from 17.10.2014 to 16.10.2015. On 23.02.2015, the said vehicle was driven by Javed S/o. Juber Ahmed, a holder of valid driving license No.UP-12-20080006338, met with an accident at Haridwar Road and major damage was caused to the vehicle. The complainant intimated the opposite parties and lodged insurance claim but the same remained pending. On 22.04.2016, the complainant sent reminder letter to the Grievances Cell of the opposite parties to which the opposite party sent reply dated 13.06.2016 seeking clarification that as per the investigation, the said vehicle was being driven by one Nasrat Ali S/o. Yusuf Ali (driving license No.UP-12-21170009032) at the time of accident and not by Javed S/o. Juber Ahmed. The complainant responded the said letter by clarifying that the vehicle was being driven by Javed and not by Nasrat Ali. Further the opposite parties sent reply on 01.08.2016, which is reproduced as under:-

“This is with reference to your letter receive dated 22.07.2016 on the subject cited above. The competent authority is not satisfy from your reply. This is with reference of investigator (Royal Associates) mention in his report that ‘Nasrat was driving truck at the time of accident/he was alone in truck. Javed was not even present in truck. You & Nasrat Ali confessed that Narsad Ali was driving the vehicle at the time of accident & Nasrat confessed that his driving license was expired at the time of accident. So you had given driving license of Javed. So there is breach of policy conditions.

We through this letter, request you to give reply within 7 days otherwise competent authority will repudiate your claim.”

The complainant further stated that vide letter dated 03.08.2016 reaffirmed contents of letter date 13.06.2016 that Javed was driving the vehicle at the time of accident & that Nasrat Ali was not driving the vehicle. The complainant further clarified that even if Nasrat Ali was driving the vehicle, he had a valid driving license and therefore his claim cannot be repudiated. Again on 09.08.2016, the complainant sent another clarification letter mentioning that Nasrat Ali was driving the vehicle and was having valid driving license. The complainant many times visited office of opposite parties with regard to his genuine claim but they paid no heed to his requests. Even the complainant sent legal notice dated 03.06.2017 to the opposite parties, which was responded by opposite parties vide letter dated 12.06.2017 rejecting the claim of the complainant on the ground of misrepresentation regarding the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and doubt with regard to driving license of Nasrat Ali. The rejection of the genuine claim of the complainant is unsustainable in the eyes of law and on the basis of report of a private investigator which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the opposite parties have wrongly rejected his claim due to which he has suffered mental tension, agony and harassment for which he is entitled to compensation. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay insurance claim of Rs.15,50,000/- along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; lack of jurisdiction; suppression of material facts; lack of cause of action etc. The opposite parties admitted the issuance of insurance policy no.36110231140100003499 w.e.f 17.10.2014 to 16.10.2015 subject policy terms and conditions for vehicle no.PB-13-Z-5656 and its IDV Value is Rs.15,50,000/-. The opposite parties stated that on receipt of the claim intimation, the opposite Parties immediately deputed Dharminder Singh Surveyor for spot survey who has submitted his report dated 01.03.2015 to the respondent. Thereafter, R.P. Bhasin and Company surveyor was deputed to survey and assess he loss of damaged vehicle who submitted his report dated 23.11.2015 to the company. The complainant has given the name of driver Javed in claim intimation, to spot surveyor Dharminder Singh and then to R.P. Bhasin and Company in their respective survey reports. Thereafter the respondent company deputed M/s Royal Associates to investigate the genuineness of the claim and during Investigation of M/s. Royal Associates, the complainant/Insured and Nasrat Ali have given statement that Nasrat Ali was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he has also reported the matter to the concerned police. The said investigator also moved an application under RTI Act to RTO, Muzafarnagar about the DL No.UP12/2007/0009032 account Mr. Nasrat Ali and as per reply driving license fee was deposited on 28.02.2015 vide receipt no.3089715. It is clear that the license fee has been deposited after the accident dated 23.02.2015 and the license was expired at the time of accident. The said investigator submitted his complete report dated 06.06.2016 to the respondent company, which is reproduced as under:-

“We verified DL of Yusuf All From LA Muzaffarnagar. We visited LA Muzaffarnagar, but they refuse to provide the desired information. So we applied through RTI Act, 2005 and obtained information from LA Muzaffarnagar. So it is clear from the report that fee was deposited on 28-02- 2015 after date of accident i.e. 23.02.2015. It is also clear that driving license was renewed from back date i.e. 11.02.2015.”

The opposite parties further stated that on receipt of claim documents, their official applied their mind and sent letter dated 30.06.2016, 01.08.2016, 20.12.2016. On receipt of unsatisfactory reply, the respondent sent repudiation letter dated 12.06.2017. The opposite parties stated that they have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C2 is the copies of photographs, Ex. C3 is the copy of letter dated 22.04.2016 of the complainant sent to Grievance Cell, Ex. C4 is the copy of letter dated 13.06.2016 of the opposite parties, Ex. C5 is the copy of letter written by the complainant, Ex. C6 is the copy of letter dated 01.08.2016 of the opposite parties, Ex. C7 is the copy of letter dated 03.08.2016 of the complainant to Grievance Cell, Ex. C8 is the copy of letter dated 09.08.2016 of the complainant to the insurance company, Ex. C9 is the copy of legal notice dated 03.06.2017, Ex. C10 is the copy of reply dated 12.06.2017 to the legal notice dated 03.06.2017, Ex. C11 is the copy of extract of driving license of Nasrat Ali, Ex. C12 is the copy of estimate, Ex. C13 is the copy of driving license of Javed and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhaap, Manager of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R100 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                The complainant is the owner of a transport vehicle/truck No.PB-13-Z-5656 obtained an insurance policy No.36110231140100003499 Ex. C1 with validity from 17.10.2014 to 16.10.2015. On 23.02.2015 at about 02.00 AM, the said vehicle met with an accident Near Mani Mai Mandir, Doiwala (Dehradun) resulting in considerable damage to the vehicle. Accordingly, a claim was lodged with the opposite parties who deputed Dharminder Singh, Surveyor to conduct spot survey. He submitted his report on 01.03.2015 Ex. R60. Thereafter, M/s. R.P. Bhasin and Company vide his report dated 23.11.2015 Ex. R59 assessed the loss to be Rs.4,25,000/-. Thereafter, the opposite parties deputed M/s. Royal Associates to investigate the claim of the complainant who found that it is one Nusrat not Javed was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he was alone in the vehicle at that time. Further, the driving license of said Nusrat had already expired on 10.02.2015 i.e. 13 days before the date of accident and he applied for its renewal on 23.02.2015 i.e. after the accident. The investigation report is Ex. R37. Letters in the form of queries and replied were exchanged between the parties hereto. Finally vide letter Ex. R1 dated 12.06.2017, the opposite parties expressed their inability to entertain the claim and repudiate the same for the following reasons:-

“We sorry to inform you that our competent authority has been repudiated this claim as under mention facts:

1.  Issue to Misrepresentation of Driver: You mentioned in jaim form that Mr. Javed son of Sh. Juber Ahmed (DL No. UP12- 20080006338) was driving this vehicle at the time of accident. But as per investigation by our investigator, you have given in your statement that 'Nasrat was driving this vehicle at the time of accident and he was alone with his vehicle at the time of accident.
2. Doubt about Driving Licence's validation of Mr. Nasrat Ali (DL No. UP12/2007/0009032) As per verification of the above DL by our investigator, the DL deposit fee was submitted dated 28.02.2015 but accident held on dated 23.02.2015. It creates doubt about DL verification. Hence, we regret our inability to entertain your claim.”

7.                   Now the point of determination arises whether the opposite parties were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the actual driver Nusrat was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident.

8.                In the present case, perusal of extract of driving license of Nusrat Ex. R29 shows that the licence  was expired on 10.02.2015 and an application was moved for its renewal on 28.02.2015 i.e. within the stipulated period of 30 days and the renewal was endorsed on 04.03.2015. Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicle Act defines that the “driving licence” means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.” Further Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act stipulates regarding the renewal of driving license. The same is reproduced as under:-

“15. Renewal of driving license. (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry.”

Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. So it will necessarily imply that Nusrat was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ishwar Chandra and others Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.1213 of 2007 decided on 08.03.2007 has interpreted Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act and observed that the proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal.  As such, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the opposite parties are not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

9.                In the present case also, M/s. R.P. Bhasin & Co., Surveyors/Assessors vide his report Ex. R59 has assessed the insurance company’s liability as Rs.4,,25,000/- by stating that the loss was further negotiated with the insured and the insured had agreed to accept Rs.4,25,000/- only on Cash Loss Basis and has given the consent with full satisfaction. Further we have gone through the consent dated 22.11.2015 given by the complainant vide which he agreed to accept an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- as full and final settlement of his claim subject to terms, conditions and exceptions as per policy towards repairs and replacement of his claim for damage to the above vehicle which occurred on 23.02.2015. In his above consent, the complainant further stated that he agreed that he will not submit any supplementary claim for said loss. The towing and or other misc. charges spent in this claim are included in this figure. The settlement is subject to the acceptance of the liability by the insurance company and is without prejudice. The complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement, so far as the surveyor report Ex. R59 is concerned as the complainant has neither filed any objections to controvert the averments made in the written statement. The opposite parties are also have not challenged the findings of the surveyor report. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to pay the claim of Rs.4,25,000/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R59 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment. The opposite parties are also burdened with composite cost of Rs.10,000/-.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay the claim of Rs.4,25,000/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R59 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment.  The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Payment of costs shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President        

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.09.2023.

Gobind Ram.