DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 96 of 26.03.2008<br /> Decided on : 15-07-2008<br /> <br /> Darshan Singh Brar S/o Gulzar Singh R/o Village Deep Singh Wala, District Faridkot.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bank Bazar, Bathinda through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaitu through its Branch Manager.<br /> 3.Tata Motor Finance Services Ltd., S.C.F. No. 133, Opp. Rose Garden Improvement Shopping Complex, Bathinda through its Manager. <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.L Bansal, Advocate, counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> Sh. H S Dhillon, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking directions from this Forum to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to pay him Rs. 6.00 Lacs alongwith interest @18% P.A. as loss; Rs. 25,000/- as damages on account of mental agony and pains and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Truck No. PB-04K-8115 model 2006. It was hypothecated with opposite party No. 3 through its Moga office. Vehicle was comprehensively insured with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide Cover Note No. 760517 dated 26.10.06. Opposite party No. 2 is the branch of opposite party No. 2 and is working under it. Insurance Policy was not supplied against the cover note. This vehicle had met with an accident on 10.7.07 at about 5.30 p.m. in the revenue limits of P.S. Zira. It was totally damaged. DDR No. 27 dated 10.7.07 was registered in Police station Zira. Jagjeet Singh driver of the truck was seriously injured. After he recovered from the injuries, he did not turn up to him although he gave his driving licence No. No. PB-30-204/NDL/07-08 valid from 10.5.06 to 9.5.09. Intimation of the accident was was immediately given to the office of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Mr. Ashok Bansal of Kotkapura was deputed as spot surveyor and report was prepared by him. Thereafter Mr. R P Gupta from Ludhiana was deputed as final surveyor by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. After spot survey vehicle was shifted to Moga under the instructions of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. It was got repaired under the instructions of the final surveyor. A sum of more than Rs. 6.00 Lacs has been spent for its repairs. It is alleged that at the time of survey, surveyor had obtained his signatures on different five six papers, blank vouchers, consent form and full and final voucher with the assurance that full claim would be paid. He (complainant) withdraws the signatures. It is further alleged by him that copies of the spot and final survey reports have not been supplied to him. He was told that file has been sent to opposite party No. 2 which is the final authority of the claim. Opposite party No. 2 was approached but no satisfactory reply was given. Non-payment of the claim has caused him mental agony, pains and sufferings. More than six months have elapsed but opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not responded so far. He alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking legal objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident due to which claim is not payable and has been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because the claim has to be repudiated on technical grounds; complaint has been filed to harass them and complainant has not come with clean hands. On merits, they admit that complainant is the owner of the vehicle and it was insured for the period from 26.10.06 to 25.10.07. Detailed policy alongwith terms and conditions was supplied to him. This vehicle had met with an accident within the revenue limits of Police Station Zira. Minor loss was caused to the truck and it was repairable. Driver Jagjeet Singh had received minor injuries. On verification his driving licence was found fake and forged. Sh.. Ashok Bansal and Sh. R P Gupta were deputed as spot and final surveyors respectively. They deny that vehicle was shifted under their instructions and signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank papers, voucher and consent form etc., Complainant did not co-operate with them. Claim was not payable and has been repudiated vide letter dated 3.4.08. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply stating that in the contract of Insurance between the complainant and opposite party No. 1, there is a condition to the extent that in case of total loss, claim will be paid to it. This is also evident from the Insurance Policy wherein it has been mentioned that policy is subject to IMT Endorsement No. 55. Even otherwise complainant has authorised it to receive the claim amount from the Insurance Company under Loan-cum-Hypothecation -cum-Guarantee. Apart from this, it is also entitled to receive the amount under Section 152 of the Contract Act. It is a proforma party. It has nothing to do with the delayed settlement of the claim by the Insurance Company. Vehicle was got financed from it. It is de-jure owner of the vehicle. Under the agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,24,000/- was financed to the complainant and the same is to be repaid by him alongwith finance charges aggregating to a sum of Rs. 15,05,363/- in 47 monthly installments. Complainant has paid Rs. 5,12,935/- till date. Still an amount of Rs. 9,92,428/- is outstanding towards him. There is no deficiency in service on its part.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Insurance Cover Note 760517 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of R.C. of vehicle (Ex. C-3), photocopy of driving licence of Jagjeet Singh (Ex. C-4), photocopy of DDR No. 27 dated 10.7.07 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of front page of claim file (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Investigation report (Ex. C-7), photocopy of verification of DDR (Ex. C-8), photocopies of bills dated 9.8.07 and 11.8.07 (Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10) respectively, photocopy of final and reinspection survey report (Ex. C-11), photocopies of letters dated 27.7.07 & 20.7.07 (Ex. C-12 & Ex. C-13) respectively, photocopy of spot survey report (Ex. C-14), photocopy of letter dated 10.7.07 (Ex. C-15), photocopy of Estimate of Krishna Auto Sales (Ex. C-16), photocopy of letter dated 27.12.07 (Ex. C-17), photocopy of bill dated 9.7.07 (Ex. C-18), photocopy of Investigation report (Ex. C-19), photocopy of statement of complainant (Ex. C-20), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-21 to Ex. C-34), photocopies of verifications of Driving Licences (Ex. C-35 & Ex. C-36) and photocopy of Form 'A' alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-37).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. S P Sharma, Deputy Manager (Ex. R-2), photocopies of letters dated 3.4.08 and 29.1.08 (Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-4), photocopy of verification of driving licence (Ex. R-5), photocopy of Motor Survey Report (Ex. R-6), photocopy of DDR No. 27 dated 10.7.07 (Ex. R-7), photocopy of Motor Claim Form (Ex. R-8), photocopy of certificate cum policy schedule (Ex. R-9), affidavit of Sh. Davinder Singh Sandhu (Ex. R-10) and on behalf of opposite party No. 3 photocopy of account statement (Ex. R-1) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 8. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that complainant is the owner of truck No. PB-04-K-8115 which has been hypothecated with opposite party No. 3 and was comprehensively insured with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide Insurance Cover note, copy of which is Ex. C-2 for the period 26.10.06 to 25.10.07. It had met with an accident on 10.7.07. Intimation of the accident was given to the opposite parties. Driver Jagjeet Singh had received injury. S/Sh. Ashok Bansal and R P Gupta were deputed spot and final surveyors respectively. Copy of the spot survey report is Ex. C-14 whereas copies of the final survey reports are Ex. R-6 & Ex. C-11. Claim regarding this vehicle has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 3.4.08 , copy of which is Ex. R-3 during the pendency of this complaint on the ground that driving licence of Jagjeet Singh driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident is fake as per verification report of District Transport Officer, Bathinda.<br /> 9. Material question for determination is as to whether repudiation of the claim made by the opposite parties is justified. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that Jagjeet Singh was the driver at the time of accident and he was possessing two driving licences. Out of them, driving licence No. PB-30-204/NDL/07-08 was valid from 10.5.06 to 9.5.09 and copy of the same is Ex. C-4. Its verification about its genuineness was got done from District Transport Officer, Mukatsar and this licence has been found genuine as is evident from the copy of the verification report Ex. C-36. He further argued that no weight can be attached to the verification of the licence got done by the opposite parties from District Transport Officer, Faridkot, copy of which is Ex. R-5. When one licence of Jagjeet Singh has been found genuine and valid, repudiation of the claim is illegal. For this, reliance is placed on the authorities United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Rani & Others II(1998) ACC 382 (DB), Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Munshi Ram and Others 2002 ACJ 915, United India Insurance Co. Vs. Sudha Singh I(2007) CPJ 137 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Lalajit Yadav I(2008) CPJ 123.<br /> 10. Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 countered this argument of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that complainant cannot drive any benefit from the verification report copy of which is Ex. C-36. Original driving licence of Jagjeet Singh has been found fake vide report copy of which is Ex. R-5 and its subsequent renewal does not make the driving licence genuine and valid.<br /> 11. We have considered the rival arguments.<br /> 12. In our view argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that driver of the truck at the time of accident was possessing two driving licences is beyond pleadings. No amount of evidence and argument can be considered if the same is beyond pleadings. Only thing alleged by the complainant is that Jagjeet Singh driver of the truck was seriously injured and after he had recovered from the injuries, he did not turn up. However, he had given the copy of the driving licence No. PB-30-204/NDL/07-08 valid from 10.5.06 to 9.5.09. There is no evidence on the record that complainant ever intimated opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that Jagjeet Singh was possessing two driving licences. Question is as to whether Jagjeet Singh in whose favour driving licence copy of which is Ex. C-4 was issued is the same person who was driving the truck at the time of accident. The answer to our minds on the basis of evidence before us is in the negative. Complainant himself has averred in the complaint that Daily Diary Report No. 27 dated 10.7.07 was recorded in Police Station Zira about the accident. He is relying upon that Daily Diary Report No. 27 and copy of the same is Ex. C-5 which has been produced by him. A perusal of the same reveals that truck in question was being driven by one Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh Jatt resident of Village Nizzar, Police Station Guru Har Sahai. Complainant submitted the motor claim form to the opposite parties on 24.7.07 and copy of the same is Ex. R-8. In this document as well, he disclosed the name of Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh as driver at the time of accident. His driving licence number has been given by him as 1853/FDK8753/K. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank claim form carries no conviction because it is not the case of the complainant that he did not lodge claim with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. In the claim form village of Jagjeet Singh driver has not been given. There is no evidence that complainant served any notice upon opposite parties no. 1 & 2 that Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh R/o Village Nizzar Police Station Guru Har Sahai mentioned in the Daily Diarly Report and Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh R/o Village Bhullar, District Mukatsar is one and the same. There are no averments in the complaint to this effect. This was argued only during the course of arguments. Complainant through his counsel has tried to set up a case that Jagjeet Singh driver of the truck at the time of accident was possessing two driving licences. When Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh R/o Village Nizzar and Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Bhullar District Mukatsar cannot be concluded to be one and the same person, this submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is not tenable. Driving licence copy of which is Ex. C-4 in the name of Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh R/o Village Bhullar District Mukatsar does not advance the cause of the complainant in any manner. Complainant himself gave the particulars of the driving licence of Jagjeet Singh in the claim form. Accordingly opposite parties got the verification of his driving licence done and copy of the verification report given by District Transport Officer, Faridkot is Ex. R-5. A perusal of the verification report reveals that number of old driving licence in the name of Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh R/o Faridkot No. 1853/FDK/8753/K has not been entered in the record and this driving licence is fake. However as per endorsement No. 1355/RDL this licence has been issued in the name of Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh R/o Faridkot for the period 21.6.05 to 20.6.08 and it is valid for HTV. Even as per verification report Ex. R-5 Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh is resident of Faridkot and not of village Nizzar. Moreover his old licence on which endorsement No. 1355/RDL has been made and thereafter licence has been renewed for the period 21.6.05 to 20.6.08 was fake. Once the licence is fake, the renewal thereof cannot take away the effect of its being fake as has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prithvi Raj 2008 CTJ 216 (Supreme Court) (CP). Similar view has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Davinder Singh 2008 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) in which it has been held that once a licence is fake, the renewal thereof cannot cure its inherent fatality. Even if it is taken that licence No. 1853/FDK/8753/K was of Jagjeet Singh driver of truck who was driving it at the time of accident, even then his licence was fake. Accordingly, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 cannot be held liable to indemnify the complainant regarding the loss to the vehicle. Opposite parties are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant regarding loss to his vehicle. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 13. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the complainant, they are distinguishable on facts.<br /> 14. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-07-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.PhulinderPreet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br /> <br />