Haryana

StateCommission

A/584/2016

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIRBHAY SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.GUPTA

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.584 of 2016

Date of Institution: 29.06.2016

                                                               Date of Decision: 20.07.2016

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, G.R.Road, Shahbad Markanda, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda,District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager, Now, through its authorized signatory of Regional Office, SCO NO.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.   

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Nirbhay Singh S/o Santokh Singh alias Santosh Singh

2.      Santokh Singh alias Santosh Singh S/o Kartar Singh, R/o Village Lakhmari, Sub Tehsil Babain, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                                      …..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri R.C.Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          New India Assurance Company Limited (in short Insurance Company)-opposite party (O.P.) has preferred this appeal against the order dated April 25^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short District Forum).  

2.      It was alleged by complainants  that an insurance policy was purchased from opposite party (O.P.) for Rs.3,36,000/-, which was valid from 19.05.2012 to 18.05.2013. Their Vehicle met with an accident on 06.04.2013 being driven by Ankit Kumar and was totally damaged. FIR No.48 dated 06.04.2013 was lodged with Police Station (P.S.) Mandawali.  It was got repaired from Jai Maa Motor Behind 9^th Planet Hotel, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra. The total expenses of repair of the said vehicle were Rs.2,42,202/-.  Information was also given to O.P. regarding the damage to vehicle.  Claim was submitted with O.P., but, was repudiated.

3.      Opposite party filed reply converting their averments and alleged that claim was repudiated by the competent authority because driver was not having valid driving licence (D.L.) at the time of accident.  When D.L. of Ankit Kumar was got verified from Licensing Authority, Farukhabad and it was reported  that there were many irregularities in the record and FIR No.334/2013 dated 24.10.2013 was got registered at police station, Kotwali, Farukhabad under section 409 IPC. After accident, surveyor was appointed, who assessed loss to the tune of Rs.1,66,000/-. 

4.      After evaluating evidence of the parties, Learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 25.04.2016 and directed as under:-

“……………...we accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.1,66,000/- to the complainants.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant/opposite party has filed this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per report of Public Information Officer dated 10.01.2014,  it is clear that complainant did not deposit any fee qua licence issued in his name because seven digits of receipt were mentioned on the license which was not correct. Without depositing requisite fee, license cannot be issued. It shows that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license and his claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 13.03.2014. impugned order dated 25.04.2016  be set aside.

8.                In report dated 10.01.2014, it is nowhere mentioned that licence was not issued in the name of Ankit Kumar son of Munishwar. Rather it is mentioned that license No.16231 was issued in his favour vide which he was entitled to drive motor cycle and LMV (Private). The dispute is only about deposit of the fee, which cannot be ascertained because  the receipt book was not traceable. Complainant was only to show that driver was having licence at the time of accident. Whether proper record is available with the concerned authority or not is not his job. So, it cannot be opined that driver of this vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. In such like matter the benefit of doubt is to be given to the consumer and not to the service provider as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.4544 of 2012 decided on 27.11.2013 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gopanaboina Sathyam and revision petition No.3236 of 2013 decided on 07.08.2014 titled as Sh. Abhishek Jain Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  So these arguments are of no avail. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced: 20.07.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

R.K.Bishnoi) Judicial Member

 

S.K.