Haryana

StateCommission

A/1109/2019

M/S ROHTAK SHILONG ROADWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP YADAV

18 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.1109 of 2019

                   Date of Institution:20.12.2019

          Date of Decision:18.07.2024

 

M/s Rohtak Shilong Roadways Hissar Road near M.G.Motors, Rohtak through its authorized signatory Madan Kumar.

…Appellant

Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office 313 Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.

…Respondent

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri  Sandeep Yadav, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Vinod Chaudhary, counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Complainant-Appellant-M/s Rohtak Shilong Roadways Hissar, has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint filed by complainant-M/s Rohtak Shilong Roadways Hissar, was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has got his vehicle No.HR-46D-5079 insured from the opposite party  vide Policy  No.35380031160100012059 for the period from 04.03.2017 to 03.03.2018. The said vehicle met with an accident on 07.05.2017 and was badly damaged. The complainant informed the OP and  submitted its claim vide claim No.35380031170190000123.  The complainant requested the OP to pay the claim amount, but, nothing has been paid to it.  OP has rejected the claim on the ground that driving licence was fake. Infact, the licence of driver was valid and genuine.  A legal notice was also sent to OP, but all in vain. It prayed for directing the opposite party to  pay the amount of claim in full and final to the complainant along with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till payment  and also to pay another amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of unnecessary harassment and litigation expenses. As the aforementioned act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, the complainant filed the instant complaint.

3.      Notice being issued. OP filed written statement. In its written statement, some preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint; accruing cause of action; suppression of true and material facts and lack of jurisdiction etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.  It is further submitted that after  getting the information from the insured regarding the accident his vehicle/truck registration No.HR-46D-5079, the OP immediately deputed Sh.Abhijit Banerjee Surveyor & Loss Assessor for spot survey and Sh.Daya Ram Gupta Surveyor & Los Assessor for final survey to assess the loss of the vehicle. The surveyor Daya Ram Gupta assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,39,739/-, but the same was not payable as complainant violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy as licence of driver-Montu was fake. The alleged licence was issued by RTO Aligarh, which was got verified by the OP through its investigator Mr. Yatendra Kumar of Aligarh and as per report  of investigator Mr.Yatendera Kumar of Aligarh, the driving licence of Montu Singh was fake as per the RTO report. The licence No.UP81/2012/0005447 has been issued in the name of Ravi Shanker S/o Shri Prakash R/o Samanpada, Sisnigate, Aligarh and not in the name of Montu Singh, so, at the time of accident, the driver Montu Singh was not having any licence, which is clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so the complainant was not entitled to claim amount from the OP.  The complainant has specifically mentioned the driving licence of Montu Singh as UP81/2012/0005447, which was verified and found fake. The detailed reply of legal notice has been given by the OP through Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj Advocate. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.09.2017.    As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Sandeep Yadav, counsel for the appellant and Mr.Vinod Chaudhary, counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire appeal has been properly perused and the record examined.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned District Consumer Commission has  wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground that driving license was fake. Rather the complainant provide the valid license as counsel for complainant forgot to place on record the same  and now at the time of filing of the appeal, the counsel for the complainant-appellant has placed on record, copy of valid driving licence of driver Montu Singh, so the claim of the complainant-appellant be allowed, while setting aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 and complaint be allowed. 

6.      Counsel for the appellant has placed on record judgements of Honb’le Supreme Court titled as “Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company in Civil Appeal Nos.1999-2000 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 14739-14740 of 2018 decided on  04.03.2020, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru & Ors. 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 278 and opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.1570 of 2002 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sant Kumar Goyal  decided on 02.12.2004.

7.      Learned counsel for the OP-respondent argued that Montu Singh’s licence was issued by RTO Aligarh, which was verified by the OP through its investigator Mr. Yatendra Kumar and as per report  of investigator-Mr.Yatendera Kumar, the driving licence of Montu Singh was fake as per the RTO report. The licence No.UP81/2012/0005447 was issued in the name of Ravi Shanker S/o Shri Prakash R/o Samanpada, Sisnigate, Aligarh and not in the name of Montu Singh-complainant, so, at the time of accident, the driver Montu Singh was not having any valid licence, which is clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so the complainant was not entitled to claim amount from the OP.   The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8.      It is not disputed that complainant got his vehicle No. HR-46D-5079 insured with the opposite party for the period from 04.03.2017 to 03.03.2018.  It is also not disputed that during the currency of the policy, the said vehicle met with an accident on 07.05.2017 and was badly damaged.  It is also not disputed that after getting information from the insured regarding the accident, the OP immediately deputed surveyor, who assessed the loss as Rs.2,39,739/-.  Perusal of the file shows that complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driving licence No.UP81/2012/0005447 dated 09.06.2012 of driver-Montu Singh supplied by the complainant to the surveyor was fake. The complainant-appellant has placed on record another driving licence No.MN-0520130016822.  The complainant-appellant should have produced valid driving license  at the time of accident to the surveyor. The complainant-appellant has not placed on record any valid driving license of the complainant at the time of accident. The driver of the complainant having another driving licence, it is against the Motor Vehicle Act, as per which any one person cannot possess two licenses. Since, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant is not entitled to the claim amount.  The OP-respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission.  Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stand dismissed.

9.  

10.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to record room.

 

18th  July, 2024                  Manjula                  S.P.Sood                    T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member                 Judicial Member        President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)