Haryana

Jind

256/13

Anshul Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Dilbag Naidu

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 256 of 2013

   Date of Institution: 20.12.2013

   Date of final order: 20.2.2015

 

Anshul Kumar Singla s/o Sh. Brij Mohan Singla resident of H.No.48/6 Gandhi Nagar, Jind.    

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Jind Branch.  

                                                                 …..Opposite party.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:     Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

               

Present:    Sh. Dilbag Naidhu, Adv. for  complainant.

                Sh. K.K. Mittal, Adv. for  Opposite Party.

            

ORDER:

        The brief facts in the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of Innova vehicle bearing registration No.HR-15B-0004 and the same was got insured  for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- w.e.f. 23.8.2012 to 22.8.2013 with the opposite party and deposit the requisite premium. It is stated that on 7.3.2013 at 5.00 P.M. the above said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Aligarh (U.P.). The complainant informed the opposite party immediately about the accident of his vehicle and submitted all the necessary documents.  

                        Anshul Kumar Vs. NIC

                                        …2…

After accident, the vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor of the opposite party and its loss was assessed by the surveyor. The complainant visited the office of opposite party several times and requested to give the claim amount but the  opposite party did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay vehicle damage claim of Rs.2,00,000/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party has  put in appearance and filed the written reply stating in the preliminary objections  that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the real facts and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that  the driving licence No.6509/2002 Ranchi in the name of Mr. Dharambir Sharma was false and fabricated as it was not issued by the concerned authority of DTO Ranchi.  The driving licence No.557/JD/06 issued by Licensing Authority, Jind is valid only for Motor Cycle and HGV only and not valid to drive the car. At the time of accident the driving licence of Sh. Dharamvir Sharma s/o Ramniwas was not valid/effective  to drive the vehicle in question, which is clearly violation  the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant is not entitled for compensation with the opposite party. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party.

 

                        Anshul Kumar Vs. NIC

                                        …3…

Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special costs is prayed for.

 3.    In evidence the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of driving licence Ex. C-2, copy of driving license details Ex. C-3 and copy of letter dated 30.7.2013 Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. S.K. Behl Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 19.7.2013 Ex. OP-2, copies of letter dated 16.7.2013 Ex. OP-3 and OP-4, copy of letter dated 4.6.2013 Ex. OP-5, copy of driving licence Ex. OP-6 and  copies of surveyor reports Ex. OP-7 to Ex. OP-9 and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-15B-0004 was insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- w.e.f. 23.8.2012 to 22.8.2013. On 7.3.2013 the said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Aligarh (U.P). Information with regard to the accident was given to the opposite party. The surveyor of the opposite party surveyed the accidental vehicle and its loss was assessed by the surveyor. The complainant after submission of claim of his damaged vehicle visited the office of opposite party several times  and requested to give the claim amount but the opposite party did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. It is prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay damage claim of Rs.2,00,000/- as well as a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

                        Anshul Kumar Vs. NIC

                                        …4…

5.     On the other hand, the opposite party has averred that the driving licence of driver Dharambir Sharma was not valid/effective on the date of accident. Driving licence No.6509/2002 Ranchi in the name of Mr. Dharambir Sharma was false and fabricated as it was not issued by the DTO Ranchi. The driving licence No.557/JD/06 issued by Licensing Authority, Jind is valid only for Motor-cycle and HGV only and not valid to drive the car No. HR15B-0004. At the time of accident the driving licence of Dharambir Sharma was not valid to drive the vehicle in question, which is violation the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.99,000/- but the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

6.     In the present case, the accident and the damages caused to the vehicle are not in dispute. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. But no affidavit or letter from the DTO, Ranchi has been produced by the opposite party to support the contentions made in the affidavit of opposite party. In the absence of this, the affidavit of opposite party/insurance company has little evidentiary any value. We also perused Ex.C-2 and C-3. Ex. C-2 is driving licence of driver Dharambir Sharma and Ex. C-3 is detail of driving licence No. P04052000195324 issued by Licensing Authority Jind is valid for LMV (NT), M/cycle from 30.5.2000 to 30.5.2020. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Ohri 2011 (3) CPC 287 N.C.  Kuldip  Singh & another Vs.

                        Anshul Kumar Vs. NIC

                                        …5…

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2007(2) CPC207 (Pb) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sant Kumar Goyal 2005 (1) CPC 332 N.C. Therefore, we are unable to accept the opposite party contention that  the driving licence of driver Dharambir Sharma was fake.

7.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the opposite party has wrongly denied the claim of the complainant and is guilty of deficiency in service. Resultantly, the complaint is accepted and the opposite party is directed to make the payment of Rs.99,000/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor and Rs.2100/- as litigation charges within one month from the receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the above said amount w.e.f. the date of filing of complaint i.e. 20.12.2013 till full realization of amount. Parties will bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 20.2.2015

 

                                                          President,

          Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                                              Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

                        Anshul Kumar Vs. NIC

                                       

Present: Sh. Dilbag Naidhu, Adv. for  complainant.

             Sh. K.K. Mittal, Adv. for  Opposite Party.

             Arguments heard. To come up on 20.2.2015 for orders.

                                                                        President

                                        Member                   DCDRF, Jind

                                                                        18.2.2015

Present: Sh. Dilbag Naidhu, Adv. for  complainant.

             Sh. K.K. Mittal, Adv. for  Opposite Party.

             Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room.

                                                                        President

                                        Member                   DCDRF, Jind

                                                                        20.2.2015