BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 122 of 2013
Date of Institution : 17.6.2013
Date of Decision : 26.7.2016
Balwant Singh son of Sh.Atma Ram, resident of C/o Dashmesh Road Carriers, Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali, tehsil Dabwali, district Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., 107, new Anaj Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa (Haryana).
..…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………………..PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Neeraj Narula, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that the Trailor bearing No. Pb-05-K/9905, which was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.420703/31/10/63000000 commencing from 14.4.2010 to 13.4.2011, met with accident on 19.11.2010 near Sarore on Jammu Vijaypur Highway and the vehicle smashed. The vehicle was got surveyed at Auto Market Dabwali on 1.12.2010 by Sh.Raj Kumar Singhal, Chartered Engineer and Loss Assessor of Model Town, Delhi Road, Hisar. They assessed estimated loss Rs.5,22,490/-, while assessed loss only Rs.1,59,004/-. The complainant approached the Op for payment of loss, but it repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 17.6.2011 by holding that the claim is not maintainable because the driving licence of Manak Singh s/o Bogha Singh, driver of the vehicle is not genuine and not issued by Licensing Authority Gurdasspur. The complainant visited in the office of LA, Gurdasspur trice and it came to his notice that the driving licence is legal and genuine one. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Op to pay the loss of vehicle, but in vain. Hence, the presence complaint for payment of Rs.5,22,490/- as assessed estimated loss with upto date interest, besides damages for harassment, humiliation, mental agony etc. and also for litigation expenses.
2. The opposite party has filed its reply pleading for the legality and validity of the repudiation of the claim of the complainant. It is pleaded that the Surveyor has assessed the actual loss to the extent of Rs.1,59,004/- and the claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated as the driver of vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The driving licence has been shown to be issued originally by D.T.O. Gurdasspur (Pb.) and in investigation, it has not been found to be issued by the Licensing Authority, Gurdaspur. On the request of complainant, the driving licence was again verified, but the same was found fake. Thus, the claim was repudiated rightly.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.C1 to Ex.C41, whereas the opposite party has tendered in evidence Ex.R1 to Ex.R10.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. The controversy in the present case is regarding the claim of vehicle bearing registration No. PB-05-K/99058242, which was duly insured by the complainant with the insurance company i.e. opposite partiy. As per the contention of ld. counsel for the complainant, the vehicle met with accident and damaged and He lodged the claim with the opposite party, who appointed its surveyor and Loss Assessor. They assessed the estimated loss Rs.5,22490/- , whereas assessed loss only Rs.1,59,004/-. When the complainant approached the opposite party for payment of loss of the vehicle then the opposite party repudiated the same on the ground that the DL of Manak Singh son of Bogha Singh, who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, is not genuine and not issued by Licensing Authority, Gurdasspur.
6. Now, the question arises before us whether the said driving licence of Manak Singh, driver of the said vehicle is legal and effective driving licence or not? To prove their contentions, both the parties have placed on record documents. The opposite party has placed on record Ex.R5 and Ex.R9, which are reports of Bawa Investigation Agency dated 6.4.2011 and 13.6.2011 respectively. In the said reports, the Investigating Officer has reported that for the purpose of verification of driving licence, he visited the office of DTO, Gurdaspur on 5.4.2011 and 10.6.2011 respectively and as per remarks given by Sh.Kulbir Singh Randhawa that driving licence no.3072 dt. 20.3.2009 has not been issued by this office as per record. Further, it is report that said Randhawa concerned clerk gave in writing that report which was submitted by other person has not issued/not signed by concerned clerk (Sh.Kulbir Singh Randhawa). But, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant to falsify the said reports, drawn our attention to towards the document Ex.R8 placed on record by the opposite party itself. Perusal of said document clearly shows that on the said document, there are signatures of District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur and in the said document, it has been clearly mentioned that the driving licence no.3072 valid upto 19.3.2012 has been issued by that office as per record. Thus, in our view when the said document is bearing the signatures of Transport Officer, then in what way it can be said that the driving licence of Manak Singh, driver is fake. It is In this regard, we are relied upon the case law placed on record by learned counsel for the complainant cited in 2010(2) RCR (civil) 785 (P&H) titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Kumar and others. In such circumstances, reports of Investigation Agency are not reliable and on the basis of said reports, repudiation of the claim of the complainant, has no weightage in the eyes of law. It is nothing, but deficiency of service on its part.
7. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to insurance company i.e. to the opposite party, to pay assessed loss of Rs.1,59,004/- to the complainant, with upto date interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 17.6.2013, till payment. The complainant is also hereby allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, humiliation, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. Compliance of this order shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
