| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 374 of 9.9.2016 Decided on: 19.2.2021 Manmohan Singh aged about 61 years, son of Sh.Gursewak Singh, resident of 50, Yadwindra Colony, Mall Road, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Patiala B.O.II, Opposite Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Branch Manager. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Mayank Malhotra, counsel for complainant. Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OP. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Manmohan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)
FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT - Brief facts of the complaint are that in the year 2013, the complainant got insured his car make Toyota Innova bearing registration No.PB-11-AL-0010 vide policy No.36150031140300000301with the OP and has been paying the premium every year.
- It is averred that on 30.1.2015 the car met with an accident while the same was being driven by the son of the complainant Sh.Sehajbir Singh having legal and valid driving licence. The complainant raised claim with the OP but the OP vide letter dated 13.3.2015 repudiated the claim stating therein that ‘D/L expired not valid at the time of accident’ despite the fact that the car was validly insured at the time of accident, so the OP is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. Complainant also got sent legal notice dated 17.8.2015 upon the OP but the OP failed to pay any heed. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him; to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and humiliation and also to pay costs of the complaint.
REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT - Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OP, who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. The OP raised preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased insurance policy No.36150031140300000301 for Innova car bearing registration No.PB-11AL0019 for the period from 5.4.2014 to 4.4.2015.An intimation was received on 5.2.2015 with regard to the damage to the insured vehicle on 30.1.2015.Accordingly OP appointed Sh.K.P.S.Oberoi, Surveyor and Loss assessor , who submitted his report dated 23.2.2015 having assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.74014/- on repair basis. It has been further stated that the complainant submitted driving licence of Sehajbir Singh valid from 16.12.2011 to 15.12.2014, which was not valid at the time of accident and the competent authority of the OP after processing the claim found that the claim could not be entertained as the driving licence was expired and has thus repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.3.2015.
- On merits, the insurance of the vehicle in question is admitted. Further the OP has reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objection, the contents of which are not repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of I.S.Sidhu, Deputy Manager of the OP, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.K.P.S.Obroi, surveyor and loss assessor alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
-
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has got an insurance policy from OP for his car Toyota Innova bearing registration No.PB-11-AL-0010 in the year 2013 and has been paying the premium every year. The ld. counsel further argued that Innova car met with an accident on 30.1.2015 when the car was being driven by son of the complainant Sehajbir Singh who was having legal and valid driving licence on 13.1.2015. The claim was repudiated on the flimsy ground that driving licence was expired at the time of accident. The ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment WG.CDR.Bharpur Singh Bandesha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(2005)4CPJ 384. The ld. counsel has also relied upon the full bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 1ACC 194, wherein it has been held, “Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of accident” It has been further held that “It is well settled rule of law and should not ordinarily be deviated from. Motor Vehicles Act,1988-Section 149(2)(a)(ii) –Third party risks-defences available to insurer-Mere absence, fake/invalid driving licence or disqualification of driver for driving at relevant time, not by themselves defences for insurer.” The ld. counsel further argued that in lieu of the full bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the insurance company cannot wriggle out from its liability and the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the licence was not valid at the time of accident and that is why the claim was repudiated. The ld. counsel further argued that the judgment passed by the full bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is not applicable to this case, so the complaint be dismissed.He has relied upon the judgments National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut MANU/SC/1233/2007, Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Ors Manu/SC/0715/2020, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal MANU/SC/1163/2009.
- To prove this case, Sh.Manmohan Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the legal notice,Ex.C2 is the postal receipt,Ex.C3 is the insurance policy cover,Ex.C4 is repudiation letter, in which it is stated that Driving Licence expired not valid at the time of accident”.
- On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. I.S.Sidhu, Sr.D.M. tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written version,Ex.OP2 is the affidavit of K.P.S.Oberoi, surveyor and loss assessor,OP1is survey report, the total amount of damage was Rs.74014/-Ex.OP2 is dispatch register,Ex.OP3 is investigator report, Ex.OP4 is verification report,Ex.OP5 is insurance policy.
- Admittedly in this case the basic dispute is whether son of the complainant Sehajbir Singh who was driving the vehicle having met with an accident but his licence was expired and as to whether any claim is to be given to him or not. The ld. counsel for the complainant has cited the full bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 1ACC 194, it which it has been held that , “ Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of accident”
- As per Ex.C4 the claim was repudiated as the driving licence was expired and was not valid. The consumer cases are summary in nature and licence of Sehajvir Singh has been produced on the file on 18.2.2021. The date of issue is 16.12.2011.It was valid for transport till 24.2.2018 and for non transport till 24.2.2035.So it is clear that Sehajvir Singh was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident but it is not clear whether this licence was given to the OP or not. Even otherwise in para no.3 of the complaint, it is written that Innova car was being driver by Sehajvir Singh who was having a legal and valid driving licence issued by the authorities. Various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have been placed on the file by the ld. counsel for the OP but these judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are not applicable to the facts of the case as the valid driving licence has been submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant. Had licence been not produced then these judgments were definitely applicable to the present case.
- So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands partly allowed as the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid and legal driving licence at the time of accident but it was produced on 18.2.2021.Accordingly the OP is directed to pay Rs.74014/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report OP1. There is no order as to interest, compensation and costs as DL was produced late by the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:19.2.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
