Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/465

Sarabjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Damandeep Singh Adv.

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 465 dated 01.10.2019.                                                                 Date of decision: 23.01.2023.

 

1. Sarabjit Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh,
2. Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh, both residents of House No.72, Country Home West, near South City, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                   .…Complainants

                                                Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office 108, Surya Tower, The Mall, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite party 

                   Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. Damandeep Singh, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Sh. Mohinder Singh father of the complainants was owner of car No.PB-10-DY-4310 which was insured with the opposite party vide policy cover note No.36040231160100001552. Sh. Mohinder Singh expired on 27.09.2017 leaving behind the complainants as his legal heirs. On 13.12.2016 at about 08.00 PM, Sh. Harjapneet Singh son of complainant NO.1 was driving the said car near Electricity Office and Canal Bridge Issewal, the said car met with an accident and fell into the canal with the result Harjapneet Singh died and the car was totally damaged. The matter was reported to the police and the post mortem of the deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The complainants intimated the opposite party regarding the damage to the car and lodged the claim along with all relevant documents and completed all the formalities required by the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainants visited the office of opposite party number of times and on enquiry about their claim, the officials of the opposite party told that the claim is being processed.  Ultimately vide letter dated 14.12.2018, the opposite party refused to pay the claim on a flimsy ground. However, Harjapneet Singh was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in which the car was totally damaged. The repudiation letter is illegal, null and void as there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainants have suffered mental tension, pain agony and suffered on account of non-payment of the claim for which the complainants are entitled to the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as amount of compensation and loss and Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service. In the end, the complainants have prayed for giving direction to opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as amount of compensation along with interest @18% per annum and Rs.2,50,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. The opposite party alleged that the complainants lodged the claim regarding damage to their car bearing registration No.PB-10-DY-4310 and immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered and processed. Er. Daljit Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for spot survey and  he contacted the insured Sh. Mohinder Singh and demanded the documents but the insured told him that the documents are lying with the police and will provide documents later on but in spite of so many phone calls, the insured had not supplied the documents. Er. Daljit Singh submitted his survey report dated 08.03.2017. M/s. HEXA Investigation and Auxiliary Insurance Services was deputed for investigation of the mater and they investigated the matter through their representative and submitted investigation report dated 30.01.2017 along with documents with the opposite party. In their investigation report, M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services clarified that Mr. Harjapneet Singh was driving the car at the time of accident and he was accompanied by a girl namely Gurjiwan Kaur daughter of Sucha Singh at that time. It was also clarified that Harjapneet Singh was having Learner’s License and licence is subject to Rule (3) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The opposite party further alleged that after receipt of the spot survey and after receipt of investigation report of M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services, the claim file of the complainants was duly scrutinized in terms of insurance policy. The complainants were asked to provide copy of driving licence of Gurjeewan Kaur who was present in the car at the time of the accident but the complainants have not supplied the copy of driving licence of Gurjeewan Kaur. The word ‘L’ was also not written on the front and back of the car at the time of accident. As such the claim file of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 14.12.2018 which is reproduced as under:-

‘Hexa Investigation and Auxiliary Insurance Services investigator was deputed in this claim. On the basis of investigator and final surveyor the driver in this accident was having learner’s licence at the time of accident. So as per the provision of Central Motor Vehicle Rues, 1989  as amended up to date (learner licence driver can drive the vehicle only with when accompanied by the person having valid driving licence and L should be written on the front and back of vehicle). But till date you have not provide the driving licence of the girl (Gurjeewan Kaur) who was present in the car at the time of accident. So we presume that you are not interested in this claim so we close this claim on basis of non submission of documents.’

Rue 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 provides that a person who is holder of Learner’s licence issued to him in form 3 to drive the vehicle should have been accompanied by an instructor holding an effecting driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle and letter ‘L’ should have been printed in the front and rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and rear in red on a white back ground and said painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters square and the letter ‘L’  shall not be less than 10 centimeters high, 2 centimeter thick and 9 centimeter wide at the bottom.

                   Further as per insurance policy provides that any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. As such, the insured has not complied with the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants have been requested to provide driving licence of Gurjeewan Kaur but they failed to provide the same which means that Gurjeevan Kaur was not having valid and effective driving licence and the policy terms and conditions have been violated. The insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer on the basis of utmost good faith and both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.               

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the facts stated in preliminary objections and brief facts of the case and denied the deficiency of service on their parties. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

3.                In support of their claim, complainant No.1 Sarabjit Singh tendered affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainants also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance w.e.f. 20.10.2016 to 19.10.2017, Ex. C2 is the copy of aadhar card of Sarabjit Singh, Ex. C3 is the copy of aadhar card of Gurmeet Singh, Ex. C4 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 14.12.2018, Ex. C5 is the copy of learner’s licence of Harjapneet Singh, Ex. C6 is the copy of death certificate of Mohinder Singh, Ex. C7 is the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle, Ex. C8 is the copy of FIR No.117 dated 2016 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Ms. Punam Sharma, Manager of the opposite party, affidavit Ex. RW1/B of Sh. Pritpal Singh of M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services, affidavit Ex. RW1/C of Er. Daljit Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor along with documents i.e. Ex. R1 copy of repudiation letter dated 14.12.2018, Ex. R2 is the copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance w.e.f. 20.10.2016 to 19.10.2017, Ex. R3 is the copy of report dated 30.01.2017 of M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services, Ex. R4 is the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle, Ex. R5 is the copy of learner’s licence of Harjapneet Singh, Ex. R6 is the  copy of passport of Mohinder Singh, Ex. R7 is the copy of statement of Mohinder Singh, Ex. R8 is the copy of report dated 17.01.2017 of M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services, Ex. R9 to Ex. R11 are the copies of photographs, Ex. R12 is the copy of Motor car inspection report of AKCM INSU Auxiliary Private Limited, Ex. R13 is the copy of email, Ex. R14 is the copy of FIR No.117 dated 15.12.2016, Ex. R15 is the copy of email dated 27.01.2020  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.                It may be noticed that Er. Daljit Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Sh. Pritpal Singh of M/s. HEXA Investigation & Auxiliary Insurance Services also tendered their respective affidavits with regard to spot survey report Ex. r15 dated 08.03.2017 and investigation report Ex. R3 dated 30.01.2017. The investigation carried out by them confirms the registration of FIR Ex. R14. After verification of the registration certificate Ex. R4 in the name of Mohinder Singh and learner’s licence  Ex. R5 of deceased Harjapneet Singh all the documents were found to be genuine. However, the opposite parties invoked Rule 3 of The Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 on the basis of observation made in the investigation report Ex. R3. The opposite parties have closed the claim of the complainants solely on the basis of non-submission of documents i.e. driving licence of the girl (Gurjiwan Kaur) who was accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident. It can be ascertained from the evidence on record that the driving licence of girl Gurjiwan Kaur was not in power and possession of the complainants. Both the surveyor and investigations have demanded this document from the complainants but none of them had approached the said girl Gurjiwan Kaur for providing her driving licence. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical. This Commission is of the considered view that in the light of the guidelines issued vide IRDA circular 20.09.2011, it can be safely held that the insurance company cannot be allowed to reject the claim on technical grounds. Rather the rejection by the insurance company must be based on sound logic and valid grounds.

7.                In this regard, reference can be made to 2022(2) Apex Court Judgment 281 (SC) in case title Gurmel Singh Vs Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the appellant to    procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non­submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the appellant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control. The complainants have staked the claim of total damage to their car but the complainants have not placed on record any repair bill nor have submitted that the vehicle is in ply-able condition or not or the same is lying parked in damaged condition. However, as per Police Schedule cum certificate of insurance Ex. C1 = Ex. R2 the total IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,16,667/-. Moreover, as per Ex. R15 the surveyor Er. Daljit Singh has assessed the damage to the vehicle but actual amount/loss was not assessed.  In the given set of circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the complainants are directed to submit the driving licence of Gurjiwan Kaur with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite party shall consider and settle claim of the complainant as per IDV of the vehicle and as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of document from the complainants.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainants to submit the driving licence of Gurjiwan Kaur with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite party shall consider and settle claim of the complainant as per IDV of the vehicle and as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of document from the complainants. The opposite parties shall further pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants compositely assessed as compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

9.                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:23.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Sarabjit Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.                      CC/19/465

 

Present:       Sh. Damandeep Singh,  Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate for OP.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainants to submit the driving licence of Gurjiwan Kaur with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and thereafter, the opposite party shall consider and settle claim of the complainant as per IDV of the vehicle and as per terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of document from the complainants. The opposite parties shall further pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants compositely assessed as compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

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

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.