BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
                        REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
                                               Complaint  No.165 of 2015
                                               Date of Instt.    23.04.2015
                                               Date of Decision : 06.01.2016

Jarnail Singh Mohay son of Ram Parkash Mohay C/o V.PO Davidha Aryana, District Hoshiarpur.
                                                                  ..........Complainant                                           Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Kasauli Road, Sector-2, Parwanoo, 173220 (H.P), through its Branch Manager.
                                                                  .........Opposite party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:       Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
                    Ms. Jyotsna Thatai             (Member)
         Sh.Parminder Sharma       (Member)

Present:     Sh.Gurpreet Kaur Adv., counsel for complainant.
        Sh.Brijesh Bakshi Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order
             Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
1.     Complainant Jarnail Singh Mohay filed the present complaint against Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OP) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency in service with prayer to direct the OP to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2,93,000/- alongwith interest and Rs.50,000/- as damages for harassment etc and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant owns a vehicle Tata Mint White Indica bearing registration No.PB07Z-3169 and got the same insured with the OP for the period 6.1.2011 to 5.1.2012; that during operation of the insurance, vehicle in question met with an accident on 13.3.2011 near Kartarpur Road, District Jalandhar and vehicle in question was totally damaged and at that time, Navjot Singh and Bhupinder Singh, sons of the complainant, alongwith two other relatives received injuries and admitted in the hospital; that immediately after the accident, complainant informed the OP and official of OP contacted the complainant and also gave information to concerned police station and obtained the driving license of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and complainant gave all the documents to the said official and also completed all the formalities and told the said official that at the time of accident, Navjot Mohi was driving the vehicle in question and also gave his driving license to the said official; that on the desire of said official, complainant also gave driving license of Bhupinder Singh and Kamaljit Singh as identity proof and complainant was told that the claim would be settled within six months but even after the passing of six months, the claim was not finalized and on enquiry, complainant was told that the settlement of claim is in process; that even thereafter complainant enquired from the OP many times but he was always told that claim is under process and would take some time and as such the OP was delaying the matter on the one or other pretext; that complainant also gave representation to the Secretary General Insurance vide letter dated 22.10.2013 but no reply was received by him and then complainant served legal notice on the OP but with no effect and this conduct of the OP shows deficiency in service. Hence, complaint was filed.
3.        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP and OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint on the preliminary objection that same is not maintainable in the present form and complaint is also time barred as the accident took place on 13.3.2011 and thereafter claim was repudiated vide letter dated 30.12.2011 through registered post but complainant have not disputed or challenged the repudiation and complaint is also false and frivolous and complainant have filed a claim by concealing the material facts and by misrepresentation. It was asserted that claim in this case was filed by the complainant for own damage and it was disclosed by the complainant that vehicle in question was being driven by Bhupinder Singh who was holding driving license No.6829 dated 20.2.2010 issued by Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur valid upto 19.2.2013 and thereafter OP insurance company deputed the surveyor to determine the genuineness and validity of the said license and upon investigation it was revealed that the driving license in question had not been issued by the said licensing authority and even thereafter show cause notice was issued to the complainant informing him that the claim is not tenable on account of invalid driving license of Bhupinder Singh and complainant was asked to prove his claim failing which the claim would be repudiated but complainant did not reply nor produced any evidence to prove his claim and thereafter the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 30.12.2011 as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the letter dated 30.12.2011 was sent through registered post which was duly received and acknowledged by the complainant. It was asserted that after receiving letter dated 30.12.2011, the complainant took contradictory plea that the vehicle was being driven by his son Navjot Mohi at the time of accident and legal notice dated 6.2.2012 was given by the complainant to this effect and as such the complaint is false and frivolous and is afterthought with a motive to claim undue financial gain from the insurance company; that complainant is barred to file the complaint by his own act and conduct and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. On merit, the complaint was also contested on the same lines as were taken in the preliminary objections and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with special cost.
4.        Both the parties were given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.
5.        In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.
6.        On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O12  and closed evidence.
7.        We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8.        The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant being owner of the vehicle in question got the same insured with the OP and during the period of operation of insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident and was extensively damaged. She further contended that complainant gave information to the OP regarding the accident and thereafter also filed the accident claim with the OP but the OP has not settled the claim of the complainant nor even informed the fate of the claim as no letter of repudiation has been received by the complainant so far. She further contended that it was told to the OP that the vehicle in question was being driven by Navjot Mohi at the time of accident but official of the OP took driving license from other occupants of the vehicle as their identity proof and the non settlement of the accident claim by the OP amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such the complaint is required to be allowed and OP is required to be directed to pay the insurance claim alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
9.        The learned counsel for the OP admitted that vehicle in question was insured with the OP insurance company and information about the accident was also given by the complainant but it was informed to the official of OP who visited the spot that vehicle in question was being driven by Bhupinder Singh son of the complainant at the time of accident and it was so mentioned in the claim intimation form and the accident claim form. He further contended that a DDR Ex.OP6 was got registered by the said Bhupinder Singh in which he stated that he was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident and driving license of Bhupinder Singh was also produced alongwith claim form and it clearly shows that Bhupinder Singh was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident and the plea taken by the complainant in the complaint is afterthought in order to have illegal gain from the insurance company. He further contended that driving license of Bhupinder Singh was got verified and it was found that the said driving license is a fake driving license as the same was never issued by the said Licensing Authority and report to this effect Ex.OP7 was also given by the Licensing Authority. He further contended that the case was not tenable but even then OP gave notice to the complainant to prove the genuineness of the driving license but no reply was given by the complainant and consequently the claim was repudiated vide letter Ex.OP9. He further contended that complainant has falsely averred in the complaint that OP has not repudiated the claim so far nor informed the result of claim case to the complainant so far which is false statement as complainant gave a notice through counsel Sh.Dinesh K.Kaushal Advocate in which it was clearly mentioned that complainant was stunned to receive letter dated 30.12.2011 vide which claim of the complainant had been repudiated and it clearly shows that repudiation letter was received by the complainant and the complaint being time barred as it does not come within limitation, this false plea has been taken by the complainant and as such complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed.
10.        After going through the record of the case, evidence and documents produced by the parties on the file, this Forum do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is admitted fact in this case that complainant is owner of the vehicle in question and the same was insured with the OP insurance company for the period 6.1.2011 to 5.1.2012. It is also a admitted fact that vehicle in question was involved in a accident on 13.3.2011 and information to this effect was given to the OP insurance company and insurance company deputed surveyor to investigate the matter. There is ample evidence on the file to show that complainant informed the surveyor of the OP that Bhupinder Singh son of the complainant was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. This fact is clear from the claim intimation report Ex.OP2 which is dated 31.3.2011 i.e. immediately after the accident which took place on 13.3.2011. This intimation was given by Bhupinder Singh and it is mentioned in this intimation letter that Bhupinder Singh was driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident. OP have also proved motor claim form i.e. claim form Ex.OP3 which is signed by Jarnail Singh insured-complainant and in claim form, it is mentioned by complainant that Bhupinder Singh was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident and two other occupants were also present in the vehicle and received injuries though name of those occupants are not given in the claim form. Moreover, OP have also proved the driving license Ex.OP5 of Bhupinder Singh. If it was not informed by the complainant to OP that Bhupinder Singh was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident then copy of driving license of Bhupinder Singh would not have been given to the surveyor by the complainant side. Moreover, driving license of Bhupinder Singh coupled with claim intimation form and claim form Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 clearly shows that complainant gave the information to the OP that Bhupinder Singh was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Moreover, OP have also proved copy of DDR Ex.OP6 which was got registered by Bhupinder Singh in which he stated that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and accident took place per-chance. It also shows that Bhupinder Singh was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. The driving license of Bhupinder Singh was got verified by insurance company and it was reported vide report Ex.OP7 that this driving license has not been issued by the said licensing authority. Even thereafter, insurance company gave notice Ex.OP8 dated 1.7.2011 to the complainant so that complainant can prove genuineness of driving license of Bhupinder Singh but no reply was given and consequently accident claim was repudiated vide letter dated 30.12.2011 Ex.OP9. It is clear that complainant has taken a false plea in the complaint that his accident claim was never decided by the OP nor complainant was ever informed about the result of accident claim because complainant have also given a legal notice Ex.OP10 through advocate and in para 4 of the said notice, it is clearly mentioned that complainant had received the letter dated 30.12.2011 and was surprised to know that the claim has been repudiated. It clearly shows that complainant was having knowledge about the repudiation letter and has falsely taken plea in the complaint that his claim has not been settled so far. The claim of the complainant' is also time barred because the claim was repudiated on 30.12.2011 but complaint was filed on 23.4.2015 much after the expiry of two years from the repudiation letter and it appears that in order to make the claim within limitation, complainant have taken the plea that he has not received the repudiation letter and served a legal notice thereafter but service of notice does not give any fresh cause of action to the complainant nor it extend the limitation period. Otherwise, it is admitted fact between the parties that it was one of the condition of the insurance policy that driver of the vehicle in question must possess valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and as proved by the OP, the driver of the vehicle in question i.e. Bhupinder Singh was not having a valid and effective driving license at time of accident and claim has been rightly repudiated by the OP insurance company and claim in not maintainable. 
11.        In view of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated      Parminder Sharma  Jyotsna Thatai    Ashwani Kumar Mehta
06.01.2016          Member                Member                  President