Haryana

Ambala

CC/101/2016

M/s Layalpur Transport Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Tejinder Singh Teji

16 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 101 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 16.12.2016.

                                                          Date of decision   : 16.02.2018

 

M/s Layalpur Transport Corporation, Branch at Rainbow Market, Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City through its Prop. Urjit Singh.

……. Complainant.

 

                                      Versus

 

1.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 1^st Floor, Gobind Puri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

2.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Ambala Cantt.

 

….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Tejinder Singh Teji, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. U.S.Mahi, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER:

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’) with the averments that he is registered owner of truck bearing registration No.HR58A-5845 and he got the vehicle in question insured with OPs vide policy No.31/13/104802 having validity from 06.02.2014 to 07.02.2015. On 28.12.2014 the vehicle of the complainant fell down in drain due to heavy fog and got badly damaged and in this incident driver of the truck namely Ramjan received several injuries and cleaner also expired on the spot. The complainant intimated about this to the Ops and thereafter surveyor appointed by the insurance company surveyed the vehicle. DDR regarding this has also been registered. The vehicle was brought to Yamuna Nagar from Jaspur through crane and thereafter it was got repaired from Roshan Motor Works. The complainant spent Rs.4,75,000/- on the same  and the copy of estimate of repair was given by the said workshop for Rs.5,56,143/-. The insurance company got verified the driving licence of Ramjan which was found genuine one but the insurance company wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on 30.09.2015 on the ground that the driving licence was not prepared on a Smart Card. The act and conduct of the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C13.

2.                On notice, OPs appeared and filed joint reply to the complaint. In the reply many preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, territorial jurisdiction and suppression of material facts from this Forum have been taken. It has been submitted that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid licence despite the fact that the Transport Commissioner of Motor Vehicle Department, Govt. of Nagaland had issued an order for public information bearing No.TC-23/MV/2007 (PT-1) dated 01.08.2014. In the said order it was communicated that w.e.f.30.10.2009 all the driving licences were being issued on smart card and that the issue of driving license on booklets have been discontinued after the introduction of smart card. Thus any driving license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland in booklet form after 30.10.2009 is not genuine. The Transport Commissioned has further mentioned that the conversion from Manual booklet/DL into Smart Card would be completed before 01.12.2014   with direction that DL other than smart card would be treated as cancelled.  The bills submitted by the complainant are fictitious. Though the Licensing Authority has alleged the driving licence of driver Ramjan to be genuine one but it was not a valid driving licence.  The claim of the complainant has rightly been rejected by the insurance company and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R5.

3.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the driving licence of the driver of the insured vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence and the insurance company in para No.5 of the reply has also admitted that the driving licence of the driver was effective and genuine at the time of accident but it is not understandable as to why the claim has been repudiated by the insurance company despite the fact that the incident has occurred during the subsistence of the policy in question. 

                   On the other hand learned counsel for the Ops has argued that at the time of incident the driver Ramjaan was not having genuine and effective driving licence as the same was not prepared on the format as directed by the Transport Commissioner, Nagaland vide notification dated 01.08.2014, therefore, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                The complainant has placed on file copy of policy Annexure C1, copy of fitness certificate Annexure C2, copy of application given to the in-charge Police Post Udham Singh Nagar Annexure C4, repudiation letter Annexure C5, bills for repairing of vehicle, towing of vehicle Annexure C6 to Annexure C13. The sole ground of the OPs in this case is that the driving licence of the driver was not valid and effective, therefore, the claim as rightly repudiated. It is strange that on one hand the Ops are taking the ground that the driving licence of the driver was not effective but in para No.5 of the reply it has been admitted that the licensing authority on verification had found the driving licence of the driver Ramjaan as genuine one but it is not understandable as to why the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant despite the fact that the incident had occurred during the substance of the policy and also the same was got repaired by the complainant. It appears that the insurance company has mis-interpreted the verdict made by the Transport Commissioner in the notification/public information dated 01.08.2014 because in the information received under RTI Act Annexure R9 the driving license Annexure R10 (42228/PK/Prof/10) was found genuine in all respect and the same was effective upto 01.11.2016 issued on 02.11.2010. It appears that the insurance is bent upon to avoid the genuine claim of the complainant by wriggling out the facts. It is settled principle of law that admission is best evidence and in the present case there is not only admission qua the genuine of the driving licence of the driver but there is also an information received by the OPs under RTI that the driving licence of the driver Ramjaan as valid and genuine at the time of accident. Therefore, the Ops cannot take the shelter of the notification/public information dated 01.08.2014 qua preparation of the driving licence on Smart Card as per the directions issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland. The complainant has been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present case deserves to acceptance. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the OPs titled as Munshi Ram and another Vs. Balkar Singh and another CLXXXII- (2016-2) PLR 526  is not applicable to the facts of the case and is being distinguished.

                             Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the present case we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that insurance company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, present complaint is allowed and the repudiation letter dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure C5) is quashed. Since the Ops have not placed on file any report of surveyor, therefore, this Forum has no option but to rely upon the repair bills alongwith towing bill of the vehicle Annexure C7 to Annexure C13. The details of bill has been corroborated by the complainant by way of his affidavit Annexure CX and the same have not been rebutted by the Ops despite filing affidavit of Administrating Officer Annexure R1. The OPs are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.3,83,540/- (as per Annexure C7, Annexure C8, Annexure C9, Annexure C10, Annexure C11, Annexure C12 and Annexure C13 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation etc.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 16.02.2018                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

         (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member