Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/2

Harmanjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. A.P.S.Bawa, Adv.

03 Sep 2021

ORDER

ISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                        Consumer Complaint No.02 of 2021

                                                  Date of institution: 01.01.2021

                                                Date of Decision: 03.09.2020

 

Harmanjot Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Jasbir Singh, resident of House No.632, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehisl & District Rupnagar, now residing at House No.42, Sun Enclave Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar 

…….Complainant

Versus

New India Insurance Company, through its Manager, Nangal Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar

                                                      ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present: Sh. APS Bawa, Adv. counsel for complainant

                     Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. for OP

       

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP for short) on the ground that CC is the owner of Swift car bearing registration No.PB-12-X-2026 and accordingly had subscribed the insurance policy which was valid from 24.5.2018 to 23.5.2019. It is averred that on 11.1.2019, the car of the CC met with an accident and suffered loss due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.PB233686. The OP was accordingly, informed and documents including the Driving License, Registration Certificate and copy of the FIR assessment report everything was submitted. It is averred that the CM Automobile was an empanelled agency, who prepared the loss to the tune of Rs.6,98,236.96/-. CC requested the OP to give the payment, but of no use. The OP also deputed one surveyor on 20.02.2019 for assessing the damage, but even then the claim was not settled. It is averred that one letter dated 14.3.2019, issued by empanelled survey agency i.e. Ametech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Private Limited, appointed by the OP, to the complainant in which he had asked the complainant to provide the medical report and the document to the OP company. After receiving the letter the complainant submitted the reply on dated 22.3.2019 to the nominated agency, in which the CC has mentioned the entire facts. Again the OP has issued the letter dated 28.5.2020 to the CC in which OP has mentioned that he had provided the information late and caused delay for the same and second thing OP has mentioned that at the time of accident, the CC was under the influence of some intoxicant and third thing, he has mentioned in the letter that CC has not provided medical report and other documents.

2.     A legal notice was sent, but despite sending all the documents, requests, submission of each and every required document, the claim of the CC was not settled. It is further averred that a “false FIR” was registered on 11.1.2019 against the CC and the challan was put in before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rupnagar, where the CC was acquitted vide order dated 4.3.2020. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the refund of his claim and also compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP. The complaint of the CC is signed and verified.

3.     In reply, which is in the shape of affidavit a number of preliminary objections are raised by the OP on the ground that the complaint of the CC is not maintainable as a case was registered against the CC vide FIR No.0001 dated 11.1.2019 under Section 279, 304A IPC for causing death while driving a car bearing No.PB-12-X-2026 driven by the CC, negligently and rashly. It is alleged that CC was under the influence of Drug/liquor, which is breach of policy condition. It is further alleged that the intimation of the accident was given after one month i.e. on 20.02.2019 which is also another breach of condition. In the trial, the witness did not identify the driver of the car, as such, the CC got the benefit of doubt. It is not made clear by the CC that in case he was not driving the car then who was the person, who was driving his car at the time of alleged accident. As such, the insurance is not liable to pay any false compensation. An independent surveyor was appointed, who provided the medical report of the CC, who was driving the alleged car at the time of accident. As per FIR CC was the driver of the car and was in the state of some kind of intoxicant. The surveyor of the OP had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,48,000/ on net salvage loss basis. Even the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is also challenged by the OP. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part and has prayed for dismissal the complaint.

4.     In support of his complaint, the learned counsel for the CC has tendered duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit of Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 along with other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6.

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the record of the file carefully and minutely.

6.     It is pertinent to mention here that the claim of the CC was rejected mainly on the ground that it was the CC who was driving the car at the time of alleged accident and was in the state of some kind of intoxicant. The other ground raised by the OP is that CC has not made clear whether he was driving the car at the time of alleged accident or if he was not driving the car then who was the person who was driving his car at the time of alleged accident, resulting into the a registration a criminal case under Section 279, 304A of IPC against him, which caused the death of a girl.

7.     We have perused the documents submitted by the CC very carefully.

8.     It is an admitted fact that a case under Section 279 and 304A of IPC was registered against the CC, who allegedly banged his car on another vehicle from the backside “resulting into the death of a girl”. But surprisingly CC took this specific defence during his criminal trial that he was not driving the car at the time of alleged accident. In the judgment passed by the JMIC, Ropar, who acquitted the CC, it was held that the CC was not driving the alleged car at the time of alleged accident. It is an admitted fact that the FIR was registered against the CC for causing death of a girl by rash and negligent driving. It is also admitted fact that despite several requests of the OP, the CC did not provide MLR to the OP to clarify or to prove that he was not in the ­­state of any intoxicant, in case he was driving the car.

9.     It is pertinent to mention here that as per the judgment passed by the JMIC, Ropar, it was not proved by the prosecution that who was driving the car of the CC at the time of accident, if the same was not driven by the CC. The CC is trying to take the double benefit on one side before the JMIC at the time of trial. He was successful in proving that he was not driving the car at the time of alleged accident. On the other hand, he is asking the OP for the claim of the car as an owner cum driver. It is very pertinent to mention here that nowhere in the complaint, CC has disclosed that he was driving the car bearing No.PB-12-X-2026. I feel, in such a peculiar situation, it is the duty of the CC to disclose that who was driving the car bearing No.PB-12-X-2026 at the time of accident and it is incumbent upon him to hand over the genuine and valid license of the driver, who was driving the car at the time of alleged accident, it is nowhere disclosed in the complaint by the CC. It was prima-facie established by the police that the CC was driving the car in a highly rash and negligent manner resulting into the death of a girl. The CC took the benefit of doubt in the court of JMIC, Ropar and even did not disclose under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the JMIC that he was driving the car at the time of alleged accident. I feel, that CC has not approached both the Courts with clean hands. Moreover, the judgment of the criminal court is not binding on us. This Consumer Commission has to decide the matter of its own by appreciating the evidence on the file. CC even has not chosen to file the rejoinder against the question raised by the OP that in case he was not driving the car then who was the person, who was driving the car at the time of accident. we feel, that OP was duty bound to check the veracity of the license of the person, who was driving the car at the time of accident and only then could decide the claim. We have perused the document Ex.C11 i.e. a letter written by the insurance company to the CC, wherein the CC was asked to submit the MLR of the driver, who was found in inebriated condition at the time of accident. However, in reply Ex.C12, CC has stated that he was the one who had driven the car at the time of accident but this fact is not disclosed in the complaint, the fact of the complaint submitted in the Consumer Commission are different from the documents attached by the CC. Especially, the letter Ex.C13 is not inconsonance with the averments of the complaint. Even, in the legal notice send by the CC to the OPs, it was nowhere mentioned that CC was driving the car at the time of accident. CC is clearly trying to conceal some material facts from the OPs and is not going with the OP with clean hands and rather trying to conceal the correct and true facts.

11.   In view of our above discussions, we are of the view that the CC has tried to take double benefit on one side before the criminal trial in which he was successful in proving that he was not present at the site of accident. Even, in the complaint, he is not mentioned that he was the one, who was driving the alleged car. He is trying to conceal the material and correct facts from the OP as well as from this Commission. It is settled principle of law that a person, who does not approach to the court of law with clean hands do not deserve any relief. Accordingly, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

September 03, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

PRESIDENT

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

MEMBER