A.K.Mehta President

1        Complainant Jagir Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as 'the Act') against Oriental Insurance Company through is  authorized officer, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran and another (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite Parties-Insurance Company’) on the allegations of deficiency in service with further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company to make payment of Rs. 6,84,736/- on account of loss suffered by him regarding insured vehicle alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of Combine bearing registration No.PB46H-4869 and got the same insured with Opposite Parties-Insurance Company for the period from 14.2.2013 to 13.2.2014 and insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs.9 lacs; that on 24.3.2013 Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh alongwith Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh were going on Combine in question and when they reached on small bridge near Bodal & Jaitpur, then the driver of the Combine lost control and the Combine in question fell into big pit and Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh died on the spot and Combine in question was badly damaged while Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh and Gurpreet Singh received injuries; that FIR/ Rapat No. 720 dated 24.3.2013 was recorded at Police Station Khandhar, District Swai Madhopur, Rajasthan on the statement of Foola Singh son of Jagir Singh and at the time of accident, Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh was driving the Combine in question; that the complainant who is insured of the Combine in question suffered total loss of his combine and he gave intimation to the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company in time and  requested the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company for payment of his claim; that the complainant also filed documents on the demand of Opposite Parties-Insurance Company and also requested  the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company many times to admit his claim, but Opposite Parties-Insurance Company delayed the matter on one or other  pretext and finally declined to pay the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.1.2014 with the remarks that as per
FIR, the name of  the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident is Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh who suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot, whereas in the claim documents, the name of driver is written as Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh; that Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh was driving the Combine in question and
Foola Singh son of Jagir Singh dictated the rapat to the police, but the police wrongly mentioned the  name of driver as Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh whereas Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh was actually sitting on the Combine in question and it was being driven by Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh; that eye witnesses were ignorant about the “Hindi language” and as such they could not detect the defect in the name of driver in the FIR, but lateron they intimated the police about the error in the name of the driver  in the FIR and police recorded the statements of  Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh, Foola Singh son of Jagir Singh and other eye witnesses of the accident and all of them stated before the police that Combine in question was being driven  by Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh; that the complainant spent Rs.1,11,900/- on transportation, freight & other expenses for pulling out the combine and for transporting the combine from Rajasthan to Tarn Taran and further has spent Rs.5,72,836/- on the repair of the Combine in question; that previously also, Opposite Parties-Insurance Company vide letter dated 9.12.2013 enquired from the complainant regarding the  driver of the Combine in question at the time of accident and the complainant provided all the relevant statements recorded by the police and the officials of the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company assured the complainant that his claim would be satisfied, but lateron rejected the claim vide letter dated 14.1.2014 and also demanded further clarifications which were provided by the complainant, but the matter was not settled and rather delayed by Opposite Parties-Insurance Company; that the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company have wrongly declined the genuine request of the complainant as the complainant has not violated any condition of the policy.  Hence complaint was filed.

3.       After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties-Insurance Company and Opposite Parties-Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant has violated the basic terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question and as such, the complaint is not maintainable because the driver of the vehicle in question was Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh who was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident and as such, the complainant is not entitled to get the claim; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has tried to conceal the material facts; that the loss assessed by the surveyor/ investigator  is best piece of evidence; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company vide letter dated 9.12.2013 requested the complainant to submit the copy of driving license of Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh who was driving  the vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident, but the complainant failed to furnish the requisite documents and as such, the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant on merits vide repudiation letter dated 14.1.2014 which was sent to the complainant stating therein that the claim was not payable; that the parties are  strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the policy in question and all the benefits are to be given under the policy and the public money can not be thrown away by way of charity; that the complaint involves complicated question of facts and law and as such, the complaint can not be disposed of in summary manner; that as the claim has already been repudiated, therefore no consumer dispute survives; that as  the claim has been  repudiated on merits and as such, there is no question of any delay or deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties-Insurance Company. On merits, the issuance of the insurance policy in the name of complainant by the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company is not disputed and the parties are governed by terms and conditions of the policy and exclusion clauses thereof. It was asserted that as per the police report, the name of driver who was driving the vehicle in question at the time alleged accident was Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh who suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot, whereas the claim filed by the complainant shows the name of the driver as Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh and it shows that the complainant has manipulated the facts to get the false claim from the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company which is self contradictory and afterthought; that the complainant was requested by Opposite Parties-Insurance Company to provide the copy of driving license of Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh, but the complainant failed to furnish the same. The complaint is also contested on merits on the same plea as taken in the preliminary objections and all other allegations of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and a prayer was made for the dismissal of the complaint.      

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, affidavit of  Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh Ex.C2, affidavit of Foola Singh Ex.C3, affidavit of Ajit Singh alias Harjit Singh Ex.C4  alongwith documents Ex.C5 to Ex.C26 and closed the evidence and thereafter Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.R.K.Sharma Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/6 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the ld.counsel for parties and also gone through the evidence and documents produced by the parties.

6        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is owner of the Combine in question which was insured for the period 14.2.2013 to 13.2.2014 for Rs.9 lacs as the insured declared value. He contended that Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh was driving the vehicle in question on 24.3.2013 while Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh was sitting on the Combine in question and they were going to fields in Rajasthan when on a small bridge, Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh lost control of the Combine in question which fell from the bridge and was badly damaged and Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh received injuries and died. He contended that Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh was driver of the Combine in question while Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh was helper and intimation was also given to Opposite Parties-Insurance Company. He contended that police wrongly wrote the name of driver as Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh and Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh could not detect this defect as the police writing work was done in hindi and Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh was ignorant about this language and when he came to know about this defect in the police report, then Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh and other eye witnesses contacted the police and police recoded their statements which are proved on the file stating therein that Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh was driving the Combine in question at the time of accident. He contended that amount of Rs.1,11,900/- was spent for pulling out the Combine in question from the pit and also spent Rs.5,72,836/- on the repair of the combine. He also contended that the conduct of the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant as Opposite Parties-Insurance Company wrongly declined the claim of the complainant and the complainant had to file this complaint and as such, the complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses and as such, the complaint is required to be allowed and Opposite Parties-Insurance Company is required to be directed to pay the insurance claim alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

7.       Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties-Insurance Company admitted that the complainant being owner of the Combine in question got the same insured with Opposite Parties-Insurance Company and it was also admitted that at the time of alleged accident, the Combine in question was insured with Opposite Parties-Insurance Company.  He contended that after the incident, Foola Singh son of Jagir Singh who is son of the owner got registered a  rapat with concerned police and stated that the Combine in question was being driven by Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh at the time of alleged accident, but the complainant/ owner could not produce the driving license of Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh and the driving of the vehicle in question by Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh, who is not having a valid and effective driving license is contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy as the owner is required not to allow any person who does not have valid and effective driving license to drive the Combine in question. He contended that even the surveyor filed the survey report Ex.OP1,2/4 stating therein that the driving license produced by the complainant does not match with the FIR in which the name of driver is given as Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh who died in the accident whereas the driving license of Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh is produced. He contended that even the complainant was asked many a times to produce the driving license of Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh, but the complainant failed to produce the same and then, the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company  repudiated the claim of the complainant and as such, the claim has been rightly repudiated by Opposite Parties-Insurance Company and the complaint is also false and is liable to be dismissed.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the complainant contended that even the report of surveyor Ex.OP1,2/4 shows that driver of the Combine in question was  Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh and he was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and as such, the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant even after receiving the surveyor report.

9.       Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company contended that the surveyor has only referred the driving license of  Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh because said driving license was produced alongwith the claim paper and name of the driver of the Combine in question at the time of alleged accident was referred as  Nishan Singh alias Billu son of Gurmej Singh in the claim papers. Otherwise, as per the police report, Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh was driving the Combine in question at the time of accident  who also received injuries and died in the accident, but the complainant has failed to produce the driving license of Pala Singh son of Amarjit Singh and as such, the claim has been rightly repudiated.