Haryana

Ambala

CC/23/2017

Yash Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Gopal Krishan

20 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 23 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 18.01.2017.

                                                          Date of decision   : 20.03.2018.

 

Yashpal Singh aged about 31 years son of Sat Parkash resident of H.No.189, Amar Vihar Jagadhari Tehsil Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar.

……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

National  Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh Nahan Road Near Bus Stand Naraingarh-134203 Distt Ambala through its Authorised signatory

….…. Opposite party.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER 

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Gopal Krishan Kamboj, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Vig, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is registered owner of LPT 709 bearing registration No.HR58B-7184 and he got his vehicle insured with OP vide cover note No.421206363868 having validity from 15.03.2015 to 14.03.2016. On 20.06.2015 said vehicle met with an accident in the area of PS Chhappar District Yamuna Nagar with vehicle Trala bearing registration No.HR46-C-7301 when the driver of the vehicle Jai Chand and Kaku were coming from Delhi to Yamuna Nagar. In the accident vehicle got badly damaged and the driver and conductor also died at the spot due to injuries sustained by them. The police got registered FIR No.720 under Section 283,336 and 304-A IPC in PS Chandnibagh on 21.06.2015. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP which asked him to get the same repaired. He submitted all the relevant documents to the OP but it has not sanctioned the claim and lingered on the matter on one  pretext or the other, therefore, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.48,000/- to the Metro Motors vide cash memo 3065 dated 30.06.2015 and further get the same repaired from private mechanics etc. by spending a sum of Rs.2,69,269/- due to non-functioning of the vehicle. The complainant has completed all the formalities but the OP has refused to release the claim vide repudiation letter dated 20.09.2016 on the ground that the driver was not having driving licence on smart card format. The act and conduct of OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C19.

 2.               On notice OP appeared and contested the claim by filing its reply wherein it has been submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On receiving the intimation, the Op had appointed surveyor to assess the loss and he finally after physical verification assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,82,494.73/-  but when the driving licence was found forged, therefore, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as relation of the consumer with the OP would come into existence when the driving license is valid. Objections about cause of action, jurisdiction and maintainability etc. have been taken. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavits Annexure RX, Annexure RY, Annexure RZ and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the driving licence of the driver was valid and effective at the time of accident but the OP wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Moreover, it was the is the duty of the insurer to prove that the driving licence was fake and in support of this arguments he placed reliance of case law titled as Kamlesh Kumar Jamwal Vs. United India Insurance Company 1998 (2) CPC (HP State Commission).

5.                          On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has argued that the driving licence of the driver was fake and was not prepared keeping in view the circular dated 01.08.2014 issued by the Government of Nagaland (Annexure R11), therefore, the claim has rightly been repudiated.

6.                          It is not disputed that the vehicle in question is insured with Op which met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy in question. The main grouse of the complainant is that the OP has wrongly and illegally repudiated his claim on the ground that the driving license of deceased Jai Chand, driver issued from Nagaland Authority was not genuine and effective at the time of accident, whereas as per circular dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure R11) of office of Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland stated that “Driving License is issued on Smart Card through the National Software “SARATHI” from 30.10.2009 in the state other than the license issued on booklet. Thus any license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on booklet after 30.10.2009 is not genuine. Therefore, the subject DL do not falls under genuine category. Admittedly, the license of driver of the vehicle was issued on 05.11.2010 for MC, LMV, LTV, END, LTV, HTV and HPV only as is evident through Annexure C18 (copy of license).

7.                We have also perused Public Information  letter No.TC-23/MV/2007 (PT-1) issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland on 01.08.2014 wherein it was mandatory requirement that driving licensing must be on smart card through the National Software-SARASTHI from 30.10.2009 and any license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on Booklet from after 30.10.2009 is not genuine. This license Annexure C4 in question has been issued on 16.07.2010 after the date mentioned in the circular issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland. It was the primary duty of the complainant to produce either the latest report with validity of the license from concerned office or to produce the license after converting the license prepared on booklet into Smart card. Moreover, as per driving licence issued by Nagaland Registering Authority, the address of the driver shown in driving licence Annexure C18 as of village Gandapura Tehsil Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. However, there is no assertion with  regard to his employment and residence at Nagaland and there is no explanation on the case file as to how he came into possession of the driving licence in question, nor any supporting document has been tendered by him at the time of issuing of licence have been placed on record. On this point reliance can be taken from the case law titled as Suresh Kumar Vs. Cholamandlam MS General  Insurance Company Limited and others decided on 21.03.2014 by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in FAO No.1622-2014 (O&M).  The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant Kamlesh Kumar Jamwal Vs. United India Insurance Company 1998 (2) CPC (HP State Commission) (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand; therefore, same is being distinguished.

8.                Keeping in view the above fact and circumstances we have concluded that the Op has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the license of the driver was not genuine. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint deserves dismissal. Copies 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: 20.03.2018                                                                                                                         

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N.ARORA)

          Member                        Member                        President