Haryana

Kurukshetra

239/2017

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Shiv Charan

10 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                               Complaint Case No.239 of 2017.

                                                               Date of institution: 03.11.2017.

                                                               Date of decision: 10.9.2019.

 

1. Ravinder Kumar, 2. Ranbeer Singh Both sons of Shri Resham Bajaj, residents of House No.47, Jaggi Colony, Phase-II, Ambala City, District Ambala.

          …Complainants.

                             Versus

1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector-17A, Near Jagat Complex (Opp. Taj Hotel), Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Dr. Sawhney Nursing Home Building, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra (Hr.), through its Branch Manager. 

 

….Opposite parties.

Before:        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

         

Present:      Sh. Shiv Charan, Advocate for complainant.   

                   Sh. Sanjeev Goel, Advocate for opposite parties.

                  

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainants Ravinder Kumar and Ranbeer Singh against New India Assurance Company Ltd., the opposite parties.

2.                It is stated in the complaint that the they are owners of Tata LPT Truck bearing registration No.HR37C-6277 and the same was insured with the ops vide policy No.35360231160100001651 w.e.f. 21.6.2016 to 20.7.2017. That on 3.9.2016, the vehicle was being driven by a qualified driver having valid License and it met with an accident in the jurisdiction of Police Station Handia, District Allahabad (UP). The driver infact was not at fault and the accident took place because a vehicle was parked in a negligent manner without observing the rule and regulations of the parking on the road but the author of the FIR being local person in collusion with the local police lodged an FIR against the driver of the truck in question. It is further stated that the driver was employed by complainants after taking driving test and verifying the genuineness of the License from RTA, Ambala. That in the accident, the truck of complainants was totally damaged and rupees four lacs were spent on its repair. It is further stated that complainants submitted claim to op no.2 but to the utter surprise of complainants, the same was repudiated vide letter dated 13.7.2017 on the ground that driving License was not valid at the time of accident, whereas same was valid up to 19.5.2017. That the complainants also got issued a legal notice dated 21.7.2017 to the ops  but the ops have failed to make the payment by giving false and evasive reply. It is further averred that earlier complainants filed a similar complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Ambala  and same was got dismissed on 18.9.2017 but the liberty to file the complaint in the Forum having jurisdiction was given to the complainants. Hence, this complaint for seeking direction to the ops to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of cost of repair alongwith interest and also to pay further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. It is submitted that true facts are that upon receiving the information about the incident, the answering ops deputed Surveyor Sh. Rabinder Nath Gupta for survey of damaged vehicle, who conducted the survey of damaged vehicle and also assessed the loss of the damaged vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,21,483/- vide his report dated 21.12.2016. As per the investigation report conducted by Sh. R.P. Kakkar, the driving License of Surinder Kumar was only renewed by the office of R.T.A. Ambala and as per report of RTA Ambala they have only renewed the License of Surinder Kumar and the original License was issued by LA Lucknow (UP). Thereafter, the answering ops sent an application under RTI Act through Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal, Advocate/ Investigator to Licensing Authority, MV Department, Lucknow for seeking information about the genuineness of driving License and received the same vide letter dated 28.6.2017. As per information, the license No.LKO 3790/80 has not been issued by this office. Therefore, the claim of the complainants have rightly been repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy as the driver Surinder Kumar was not having valid and effective License to ply the vehicle in question. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.                Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A to Ex.RW4/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-12 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have also gone through the file.

6.                Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complaints are the owner of TATA LPT Truck and was insured with Ops w.e.f. 21.6.2016 to 20.7.2017.  The above noted vehicle was totally damaged on 3.9.2016.  The FIR was lodged by the complainant and the complainant submitted all the documents with the opposite parties. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on 13.7.2017 with the report of fake License.  The repudiation letter is Ex.R-2.  Complainant spent more than 4 lacs to get the vehicle on road.  Complainants submitted all the documents regarding the claim of the insured truck.  The License of complainant/driver is genuine and valid up to 13.7.2020 as Ex.C-15. 

7.       Ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that it is admitted fact to the extent that the said vehicle was insured with the OPs, but the License of driver is fake as per report mentioned in Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-8.  Ex.R-8 is RTI report which shows that the License No.LKO3790/80 is not issued by the License Authority, Lucknow.  Ex.R-5 shows that the Ambala Authority is renewal authority of above said License, but the main License was issued by Licensing Authority, Lucknow.  The surveyor of opposite parties has taken RTI from license Authority Lucknow, which shows that License was not issued by the Licensing Authority Lucknow.  Ld. Counsel for Ops has tendered four affidavits to prove his version.  But the complainant have not rebut the same.  That shows the License is fake.

8.                Ld. Counsel for complainant argued in rebuttal that Ex.R-5 clearly shows that the driving License of Surinder Kumar son of Chaman Lal was issued by Licencing Authority Lucknow (U.P) vide DL No.S-LK013790/80 dated 9.6.1980.  Ex.R-8 which is RTI report submitted by the opposite party in which License Number is LK03790/80 is not stamped by the Licensing Authority Lucknow.  Ex.R-8 is only says about the driving License No.LKO3790/80.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that driving License number of complainant is as mention in Licensing Authority Ambala.  Driving License of driver is genuine.  Moreover, the surveyor report Ex.R-3 has also mentioned in para No.13 estimated loss is Rs.3,84,200/-.  But the surveyor of the OP have assessed net loss of Rs.1,21,483/-.  Ld. Counsel for complainant relied upon judgments reported as New India Insurance Company Limited versus Pradeep Kumar Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2002, decided on 9.4.2009 (Supreme Court of India).  The authorities cited by learned counsel for ops in case titled as Amandeep Singh versus Jagir Kaur & Ors, 2017(5) Law Herald (P&H), 247, National Insurance Company versus Tarsno & Ors, 2017(2) Law Herald (P&H), 1230, Alok Waghe versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., 2014(3), CPC, 354(NC).  The judgment relying upon by the Ops are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint.

9.                On perusal of Ex.R-5 clearly mentioned that driving License number is LKO13790/80 which is reported by Licensing authority, Ambala.  The opposite party fails to prove that driving license of driver No. LKO13790/80  is fake.  The opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the basis of document Ex.R-8.  Report under RTI of Ex.R-8 is only regarding driving license No.LKO3790/80. So, the driving License of the complainant is genuine.  In this regard, we are also fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Insurance Company Limited versus Pradeep Kumar (supra) wherein it has been held as “Surveyor’s Report.  Although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor’s report is not the last and final word.  It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive.  Approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.”

10.              In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay the insured amount of Rs.3,84,200/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We further direct the ops No.1 & 2 to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.   

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 10.09.2019.                                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),               (Neelam)         

Member                                    Member.