BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.299 of 2015

Date of Instt. 15.07.2015

Date of Decision :03.06.2016

Surinder Kumar aged about 57 years son of Rishi Lal R/o House No.113/G, Guru Nanak Nagar, Opp.Sports College, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

New India Insurance Co.Ltd., GT Road, 16, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Keshav Sharda Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.BP Singh Adv., counsel for OP.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party (herein called as OP) on the averments that complainant got his Tata truck bearing registration No.PB-08-AM-8350, insured with OP vide policy bearing No.3610013111010006580 covering period from 25.2.2012 to 24.2.2013 on payment of premium Rs.15,159/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.2012 when Tilak Raj driver was driving the said vehicle. As a result of this accident, the said truck suffered extensive damage and Tilak Raj driver also died in this accident. Mother of Tilak Raj filed the motor accident claim which was allowed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalandhar(herein referred to call as MACT) presided over by Addl.District Judge, Jalandhar vide award dated 18.7.2014 and the Hon'ble MACT held that Tilak Raj was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. OP deputed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.50,455.55/- whereas complainant provided estimate of repair Rs.1,36,997/- including labour charges. Claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 13.8.2014 on the ground that the investigator checked the authenticity and genuineness of the driving license of Tilak Raj driver issued by RTO Office, Hyderabad and said investigator reported that the particulars of the driving license are not found as such, the same is fake. Therefore, OP treated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim”. Complainant submitted that OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,36,997 to the complainant alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that the complainant has original driving license issued by Licensing Authority, Hyderabad and the investigator enquired from that office and reported that no particulars of said driving license are available with Licensing Authority, Hyderabad. As such, license of Tilak Raj driver is fake. As such, OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.R1, Ex.R7 to Ex.R9 alongwith copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R6 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6 From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his Tata truck bearing registration No.PB-08-AM-8350 insured with OP vide policy bearing No.3610013111010006580 Ex.C1 covering period from 25.2.2012 to 24.2.2013 on payment of premium Rs.15,159/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.2012 when Tilak Raj driver was driving the said vehicle. As a result of this accident, the said truck suffered extensive damage and Tilak Raj driver also died in this accident. Mother of Tilak Raj filed the motor accident claim which was allowed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalandhar(herein referred to call as MACT) presided over by Addl.District Judge, Jalandhar vide award dated 18.7.2014, copy of which is Ex.C3 and the Hon'ble MACT held that Tilak Raj was having valid and effective driving license Ex.C2 at the time of accident. OP deputed surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report Ex.R5 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.50,455.55/- whereas complainant provided estimate of repair Rs.1,36,997/- including labour charges. Claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 13.8.2014 Ex.R6 on the ground that the investigator checked the authenticity and genuineness of the driving license of Tilak Raj driver issued by RTO Office, Hyderabad and said investigator reported that the particulars of the driving license are not found, as such the same is fake. Therefore, OP treated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim”. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has filed driving license of Tilak Raj Ex.C2 issued by the Licensing Authority, Jalandhar and the said Licensing Authority has verified vide certificate Ex.C7 that the said driving license is valid upto 10.8.2014. Apart from this, Hon'ble MACT, Jalandhar vide award dated 18.7.2014 Ex.C3 has held that Tilak Raj was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OP is that the complainant has original driving license issued by Licensing Authority, Hyderabad and the investigator enquired from that office and reported that no particulars of said driving license are available with Licensing Authority, Hyderabad. As such, license of Tilak Raj driver is fake. As such, OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his aforesaid truck bearing registration No.PB-08-AM-8350 insured with OP vide policy cover note Ex.C1/Ex.R2 for the period from 25.2.2012 to 24.2.2013. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.6.2012 at Ambala Cantt when the same was being driven by Tilak Raj whose driving license is Ex.C2 issued by Licensing Authority, Jalandhar and verification report from the Licensing Authority, Jalandhar is Ex.C7. The matter was reported to the OP. The OP appointed surveyor Anil Kumar to assess the loss who preliminary inspected the vehicle and thereafter OP appointed another surveyor and loss assessor Techno Experts who assessed the actual loss occurred to the insured vehicle in the aforesaid accident and submitted his report Ex.R5 dated 24.2.2013 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.50,455.55/-. This surveyor also in his report Ex.R5 submitted that he checked the driving license of Tilak Raj and found the same in order. This report Ex.R5 has been duly proved by surveyor Harbhajan Singh through his affidavit Ex.R7. Thereafter, the OP appointed investigator K.R.Chander Rao to investigate into the matter. The said investigator filed his affidavit Ex.R9 that he verified the genuineness of the driving license bearing No.4856/Hyderabad/87-88 of Tilak Raj son of Dev Raj. He visited concerned RTO office and submitted his report Ex.R3 in which he stated that RTA Authority, Hyderabad expressed that the above driving license is fake as no such particulars of driving license were found in their record but this investigator did not brought any report from RTA Authority, Hyderabad and he himself assessed that the driving license of Tilak Raj was fake. Whereas, the complainant has produced on record the driving licence of Tilak Raj driver of the insured truck at the time of accident in which said Tilak Raj himself has died, has been verified as genuine and the licence was valid upto 10.8.2014 vide verification report submitted by DTO, Jalandhar Ex.C7. Apart from this, MACT while deciding the death claim of Tilak Raj gave award Ex.C3 dated 18.7.2014 held in issue No.3 that Tilak Raj driver of the insured vehicle was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of said accident. Without written report of RTA Authority, Hyderabad, the mere assessment of K.Ram Chander Rao investigator that driving license issued by RTA Authority, Hyderabad to Tilak Raj was fake is not admissible under law. Whereas, the MACT Jalandhar has held that Tilak Raj was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of allege accident. Apart from this, DTO Jalandhar has also verified vide their report Ex.C7 that Tilak Raj was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. So, OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant regarding loss to the insured vehicle.

9. As regards quantum of claim, the OP has appointed surveyor who assessed the actual loss occurred to the insured vehicle vide his report dated 24.2.2014 Ex.R5 and assessed net loss payable to the complainant Rs.50,455.55/-. The complainant did not challenge this survey report nor pointed out any defect in this survey report nor pointed out any item left unconsidered by the surveyor. The surveyor report is best piece of evidence to settle the claim of the insured vehicle. Resultantly, we hold that the OP is liable to pay this amount of Rs.50,455.55/- to the complainant.

10. Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint with cost and OP is directed to pay this amount of Rs.50,455.55/- as assessed by the surveyor vide his report Ex.R5 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @Rs.9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. OP is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

03.06.2016 Member President