Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/35

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Satish Sharma, Adv

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROOPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No. 35 of 2021

Date of Institution:          : 12.05.2021

            Date of Decision            :  24.3.2023

 

Jasbir Singh aged about 52 years son of Sarwan Singh, resident of Village Mohalla Jattan, Ward No. 1, Village Barnala, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

 

New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Mehatpur, Tehsil and District Una (HP) through its Branch Manager.

           

                                                                         …..Opposite party

 

(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.Satish Sharma, Advocate

For OP                                     :         Sh.Jatinderpal Singh, Advocate

                            

Per : KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of the truck bearing no. HR-38-G-4797 and insured with OP, which was valid from 23.02.2013 to 22.02.2014 vide policy bearing no. 36080231120100009442. The truck in question met with an accident  in Rajasthan  PS Dudhu, Tehsil and District Jaipur on 30.03.2013  in which driver of the said truck namely Mangal Singh son of Piara Singh resident of Duhial Tehsil and District Una HP lost his precious life.  The truck in question was badly damaged and complainant spent Rs.2,00,000/- on the truck in question.  After completing all the formalities, complainant applied for own damage claim for money/compensation which the complainant has spent in repairing the truck in question.  All the claim papers including FIR, repair bills, insurance policy  were submitted with office of OP in 2013 itself and more than eight years have been lapsed but OP has not cleared the Own Damage claim of the truck in question.  The complainant being owner of the truck in question no. HR 38 G 4797 got served legal notice on 08.03.2016 and inspite of receiving said notice, OP neither settled the claim nor gave any reply to the said notice. OP neither settled the claim of the complainant nor gave any reply.  As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant is entitled to get Own Damage claim of the above said truck in question being registered owner and OP is legally bound to pay the same. Due to act and conduct of OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint and prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by averring that as per condition no.1 of the policy, notice shall be given to the Insurance Company immediately  upon the occurrence of the accidental loss or damage and event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistant as the company shall require.  In the instant case the insured has failed to complied with the above said condition of the insurance contract.  The insured/complainant intentionally and willfully committed an error to disobey the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance.   Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident and he is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.  As per section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than. OP has rightly been declared the claim as “No Claim” but not declared as Repudiated the same. Therefore OP is only liable to pay the claim of the claimant after fulfill all the documentary requirement required by OP on the part of the insured. The complainant had refused to give the details of the said accident in writing.  OP has approached the complainant to provide the desired and essential vehicular documents i.e. driving licence of the same but the complainant failed to provide the desired vehicular document to the OP to settle the claim. Any deficiency in service on the part of OP was denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 and closed the evidence.

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully as well as written arguments filed by OP.

5.                 It is an established fact that the complainant is registered owner of Truck bearing registration no. HR-38-G-4797 and insured with OP, vide policy no. 36080231120100009442 which was valid from 23.02.2013 to 22.02.2014. Unfortunately, the truck in question met with an accident in Rajasthan on 30.03.2013. The vehicle in question insured with OP vide policy Ex.C-2 on the record. The accident took place on 30.03.2013 and policy was valid from 23.02.2013 to 22.02.2014, as such, the accident took place during currency period of the policy. From perusal of verification report of driving licence of the complainant Ex.OP-2, it appears that  the Government of Nagaland observed that the driving licence no.24638/TV/T/2010 not issued in the name of Mangal Singh and no record was available in their office with regard to Mangal Singh. Ex.OP-2 is a vital document for adjudication of the case in hand.  The complainant alleged in his complaint that the truck in question met with an accident in Rajasthan on 30.03.2013 and the truck in question driving by Mangal Singh at the time of accident. From perusal of verification report Ex.OP-2 it appears that the licence not issued in the name of Mangal Singh by the Nagaland Government, a such, this fact is clear that the licence in question not issued by Nagaland Government to Mangal Singh driver of the truck in question. Ex.OP-5 is copy of death certificate issued in the name of Mangal Singh by Municipal Corporation Jaipur. This certificate also shows that Mangal Singh died on 28.02.2013  and said certificate issued on 21.03.2013. The accident took place on 30.03.2013 and Mangal Singh died on 28.02.2013. It appears that the complainant intentionally  submitted wrong driving licence of Mangal Singh.

6.                 From perusal of entire record of the case file, the complainant alleged in his complaint that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 30.03.2013 and Mangal Singh driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident but Mangal Singh driver died on 28.02.2013 vide copy of death certificate Ex.OP-5 on the record. It appears that driver Mangal Singh died before the date of accident. Therefore, it is crystal clear that complainant submitted wrong driving licence of Mangal Singh to insurance company for settling his claim. The complainant also submitted his affdivait Ex.OP-6 on the record. In this affidavit he specifically stated that the truck in question met with accident on 30.03.2013  and Mangal Singh driving the vehicle at the time of accident but Mangal Singh died on 28.02.2013 vide copy of death certificate Ex.OP-5 on the record. The verification report Ex.OP-2 is also  a vital document for adjudication of the case in hand. From perusal of verification report Ex.OP-2 it appears that the driving licence not issued in the name of Mangal Singh by Nagaland Government and no record is available in their office with regard to issuance of driving licence in the name of Mangal Singh. We cannot brushed aside the verification report Ex.OP-2 as well as death certificate Ex.OP-5 on the record.  

7.                 The learned counsel for OP placed on record various judgments in support of his case i.e. titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Laxmi Narain Dutt (2007) (3) SCC 700 that when driving licence found fake, claim of owner/insured liable to be repudiated. Further, National Insurance Co. Ltd  vs. Laxmi Narain Dutt reported in 2007(3) SCC 700 that wherever the insured himself is the complainant, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse him for the damage caused to the vehicle, if it is found that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of vehicle met with an accident. We find that as per terms of the policy,  where a person is not a valid party within the meaning of the Act, the insurance company cannot be made automatically liable by restoring on various judgments of this Court where the driving licence found fake, invalid , expired or not having licence at all except third party risk or liability. We find that the citations placed on record by learned counsel for the OP is applicable in the case in hand.

8.                 We are of the considered view that the at the time of accident driver of the of the vehicle did not having valid and effective driving licence as he failed to renewed his driving licence in prescribed period in terms of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. We find that at the time of accident, the driver of the claimed vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence. An owner of the vehicle is bound to make reasonable enquiry as to whether the person who is authorized to drive the vehicle holds a licence or not. Such a licence not only must be an effective one but should also be a valid one. It should be issued for driving a category of vehicle as specified in the Motor Vehicles Act and/or rules framed thereunder. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of third party and in respect of own damage claim. The onus is on the insurer to prove that licence was fake one. The driver possessed fake driving licence. Statute is beneficial one qua the third party but that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle.  As per our view, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on two scores, first the complainant have not valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, this fact is clear from verification report Ex.OP-2 issued by Nagaland Government and other is that the complainant submitted the licence of Mangal Singh in this case  for settling his claim with OP but Mangal Singh died on 28.02.2013 vide copy of death certificate Ex.OP-5 on the record and accident occurred on 30.03.2013 , it means that Mangal Singh died before the date of accident. The complainant alleged in his complaint that in the accident, Mangal Singh died. As such, we are not fortified with the submissions of the complainant. We find no force in the submissions of the complainant.

9.                Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case , we are of the view that the complainant submitted fake driving licence for settling his claim. As such, OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. We are not fortified with the submissions raised by the complainant. Thus, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

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

 

Dated         :24.03.2023                                      (Kuljit Singh)

                                                                             President

 

 

                                 ( Rakesh Kumar Gupta)                                                 

                                                                           Member