Haryana

Karnal

309/2014

Ravi Kant S/o Jai Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Surjit Narwal

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.309 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.: 14.11.2014

                                                          Date of decision:10  .03.2016

 

 

Ravi Kant son of Shri Jai Krishan resident of House no.834/1670, Shyam Nagar, Karnal.

 

.                                                                               ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Office, GT Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before           Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-        Sh.Surjit Narwal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Narender Chaudhary Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:                  

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got his car bearing registration No. HR-05AK-9927 insured with the Opposite Party,  vide policy No.31260031130101265452,  which was valid from 17.1.2014 to 16.1.2015.  On 18.5.2014 his cousin  Arvind  alongwith wife went to Kaithal  in the said car, but when the car reached near village Shimla at about 9.30PM, one Neel Cow  emerged on the road and while saving  the Neel Cow, the car became uncontrolled and struck with a motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-29R-8089 and  then fell down in the ditches.  In the said accident Arvind and his wife and the motor cyclist suffered injuries and the car was damaged. Daily Diary Report  No.23 dated 19.5.2014 was got entered in the police Station regarding the said accident. Intimation regarding the accident was also given to the Opposite Party, who appointed Sh.Tejinder Pal Singh as surveyor. The car was inspected by the surveyor and engineer at Karnal Motors and  estimate of the repairs was given .  On 11.9.2014, the surveyor received driving licence of Arvind Kumar, but due to negligence of the surveyor, the original driving licence was not attached with the claim file. After some time when he went to the office of Opposite Party,  he came to know that surveyor attached fake driving licence

 

 

with the file. Then he sent an application through registered post to the Opposite Party on 19.9.2014 for submitting the driving licence of Arvind Kumar. However, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on 4.11.2014 on the ground that driving licence of Arvind was fake. In fact, Arvind Kumar had valid driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Karnal on 8.10.2013 and the same was valid upto 7.10.2033. No such driving licence of Arvind Kumar was given by him to the surveyor, which was found fake.  Thus, the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in services, which caused mental agony, pain and harassment  to him apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

                       

                         On merits, it has been submitted that driving licence of Amit Jangra  bearing no.11520/P/11 issued by the Licensing Authority, Rajpura was mentioned in the claim form. The said driving licence was got verified from the Registration Authority, Rajpura and the same was found to be fake, therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 4.11.2014 and intimation thereof was given to the complainant. Now, the complainant cannot take a new plea. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party, affidavit of D.K.Sarain, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

 

 

6.                 There is no dispute regarding the fact that the car of the complainant was insured with the Opposite Party and the same had met with an accident on 18.5.2014.  As per the case of the complainant, the car was being driven by  his cousin   Arvind Kumar at the time of accident and he gave the copy of the driving licence of Arvind Kumar to  the surveyor on 11.9.2014 and also sent the copy of the same alongwith the application through registered post, but the Opposite Party repudiated his claim on the ground that driving licence produced with the claim was found fake, whereas no such alleged driving licence was ever produced by him before the surveyor.

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that claim form Ex.OP3 was submitted by the complainant and in the same, the name of the driver was mentioned as Arvind Jangra having driving licence no.11520 for driving scooter, car and Jeep only issued by the Licensing Authority, Rajpura and valid upto 6.2.2039.  The copy of the said driving licence is Ex.O5. The  said driving licence was got verified from Licensing Authority, Rajpura and as per the report of licensing authority Ex IO6, no such driving licence was issued in favour of Arvind Jangra.  The complainant never produced any other driving licence of Arvind Kumar as alleged by him. It has further been argued that as the driving licence mentioned in the claim form was found to be fake, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.

 

8.                 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant laid stress on the contention that driving licence, the copy of which is Ex.C7, issued by Licensing Authority, Karnal in the name of Arvind Kumar was  handed over by the complainant  to the surveyor  of the Opposite Party on 11.9.2014, who even put his signatures regarding receipt of the same. The complainant also sent letter, the copy of which is Ex.C9, alongwith the driving licence of Arvind Kumar, through registered post on 19.9.2014,  but the  Opposite Party did not consider that genuine driving licence and wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 4.11.2014.  It has further been contended that the complainant had never  given any driving licence of Arvind Kumar issued by Licensing Authority, Rajpura. Arvind was, in fact, injured ,therefore, while submitting the claim by the complainant there could be no question of producing the alleged driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Rajpura.  Arvind Kumar gave him the driving licence issued by Licensing Authority, Karnal, when he came to his house after recovery from injuries. It has further been argued that even if, Arvind Kumar was having two driving licences, one fake and the other genuine, then genuine driving licence should have been  taken into consideration by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party was required to get verified the driving licence  of Arvind Kumar issued by Licensing Authority, Karnal also before passing any order on the  claim of the complainant. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on United India Insurance company Ltd. Versus Jatinder Kumari 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 840 wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,  that fake driving licence is no licence in the eyes of law and the licence issued by the District Transport Officer, Amritsar is the only driving licence, which was issued to the respondent-driver. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of two driving licences. The learned counsel for the complainant also referred to National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Balraj and others 2012(2) TAC 858 (P & H) wherein one driving licence of the driver was got verified and produced by the Insurance company before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the same was not  belonging to the driver. The copy of the other driving licence produced by the driver was not got proved on the ground that driver held two driving licence. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that onus to prove that driving licence held by the driver was fake and by entrusting the vehicle to such person, insured committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, was on the insurance company. Such onus was not discharged by the Insurance Company as it was not proved that  the driving licence produced by the driver was fake.

 

9.                 The document Ex.C7 is the Photostat copy of the driving licence of Arvind Kumar, issued by Licensing Authority, Karnal and on this document some person had signed on 11.9.2014, indicating that he received the same from the complainant The complainant has alleged that the said copy of the driving licence was given  by him to the surveyor and the surveyor  put his signatures.  The Opposite Party  has not filed affidavit of the surveyor that this document does not bear  his signatures. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the plea of the complainant that copy of the driving licence of Arvind Kumar issued by Licensing Authority, Karnal was given  by him to the surveyor  of the Opposite Party. The complainant has also produced copy of the letter Ex.C9, the postal receipt Ex.C12 and postal acknowledgement Ex.C7 to prove that he had sent letter on 19.9.2014 to the Opposite Party alongwith the driving licence of Arvind Kumar. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the complainant had sent copy of the driving licence of Arvind Kumar issued by Licensing Authority, Karnal to the Opposite Party before repudiation of his claim. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Party to get verified  the said driving licence from Licensing Authority, Karnal, but no such step was taken in that direction.

 

10.               No doubt, in the claim form the name of  driver  was mentioned as Arvind Jangra having licence No.11520 issued by the Licensing Authority,  Rajpura  valid upto 6.2.2039, but the claim of the complainant could not be repudiated by the Opposite Party  only after seeking report of  Licensing Authority Rajpura, because the complainant had already sent the driving licence of Arvind Kumar issued by the Licensing authority, Karnal   before repudiation of his claim. Therefore, before passing any order on the  claim of the complainant, the insurance company was duty bound to get verified driving licence of Arvind Kumar issued by the Licensing Authority Karnal which was submitted by the complainant.  Such view finds support from the proposition of law laid down in  Balaji and other’s case(Supra).  Under such facts and circumstances, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Party was not legally justified. The Opposite Party   should reprocess the claim of the complainant after getting verified the driving licence of Arvind Kumar issued by the Licensing Authority, Karnal.

 

 11.                            In view of the foregoing discussion, the Opposite Party is directed to reprocess the claim of the complainant and get verified the driving licnece of Arvind Kumar issued by the Licensing Authority, Karnal. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The  present complaint is disposed of accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:10.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Surjit Narwal Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Narender Kumar Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been disposed off. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:10.03.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.