\DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
RBT/Consumer Complaint No.290 of 2018
Date of institution: 02.05.2018
Date of Decision: 28.04.2022
Kamaljeet Singh, aged about 51 years son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of 356/&, AB Ishwar Nagar, Tehsil Road, Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
….Complainant
Versus
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madhok Complex, Ferozpur Road, Opposite Silver ARC, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager
Second Address
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (Service Centre Ludhiana), Sona Complex, Near Fire Brigade, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, P.B.7037, A25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Shri Ranjit Singh, President.
Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member
Present: Sh. Dinesh Katyal, Advocate, for complainant
Sh. B.S. Rampal, Advocate, for OPs
Order dictated by :- Shri Ranjit Singh, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant is the owner of car bearing registration No.PB-10FC-7792. The complainant insured the said car with the OPs, vide insurance policy bearing cover note No.CHD-d244098 dated 23.3.2017, which was valid from 31.3.2017 to 27.3.2018. The son of the complainant, who is having a valid driving license was driving the said car on 17.12.2017, at midnight, from Jalandhar to Ludhiana and reached at Satluz Bridge, situated within the area of Village Khurshedpur, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, but while crossing the said sutluz bridge, the insured car met with an accident, even without any fault of the son of the complainant and in the said accident the front mirror and other parts of the car was damaged. But on the other side, the police of Police Station Sidhwan Bet has lodged a false criminal case against the son of the complainant, bearing FIR No.427 dated 17.12.2017 under Section 336, 279, 427, 353, 286 of IPC, read with section 25 of Arm Act. After completion of all the legal formalities, the complainant had taken the said accidental car to Godawri Motors Private Limited, Ayali Chowk, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana for getting the repair work done. It is further alleged that after completion of the repair work over the said car of the complainant, the said agency charged a total bill amounting to Rs.1,09,580/- from the complainant, as even after making due intimation to the OPs, the OPs have failed to make the payment of the said bill, by ignoring the fact that the complainant was having cashless insurance policy. Hence, the complainant has to pay out the bill of Rs.1,09,580/- but during the period, when the vehicle was being repaired by the agency, the claimed was lodged with the OPs and requisite papers were also submitted with this regard, on the basis of the said information, the OPs have appointed surveyor who had also submitted his report regarding the insurance claim of the complainant. Even, the complainant has completed all the formalities as per the instructions of the employees of the Ops. The complainant several time approached to the Ops to settle his claim amount but the Ops always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. In this regard, the OP has served a letter dated 7.2.2018, upon the complainant, whereby the OPs seems to lingeron the matter with the excuse that as per FIR has been lodged by the policy and they have taken any legal opinion from their counsel, according to which there is any violation of policy conditions, with the instructions that in order to claim the insurance, the complainant would remove the allegation which was imposetd by the police in FIR against the son of the complainant otherwise the claim shout not be considered.
The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To pay the an amount of Rs.1,09,580/-
- To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-
- Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant may be found entitled under the circumstances of the present complaint may also be granted.
- Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OPs appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objection; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Commission with the clean hands; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing this complaint; that the complaint is also bad for mis joinder of the necessary parties; that the complaint is false, frivolous and this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the insurance policy is as contract in itself and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. Nothing can be added or subtracted out of it. Due services have been rendered in this case and claim of the complainant is found not payable and it was duly informed to the complainant; that there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the insurance policy as per its terms and conditions. The policy was issued subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the complainant have fully knowledge about it and it was duly stamped on the insurance policy that the said policy is issued “subject to terms and conditions of the policy attached”. The insurance policy is a contract in itself and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied by the Ops that the son of the complainant, who is having a valid driving license for driving the insured car on 17.12.2017 at midnight from Jalandhar to Ludhiana and at Sutluz Bridge, situated within the area of village Khurshedpur, Tehsil Jagroan, District Ludhiana but while crossing the said bridge the car met with an accident, even without any fault of the son of the complainant. As per FIR No.0427 dated 17.12.2017, the insured car was coming from Mehatpur side with high speed and police party gave signal to stop the car but the driver of the car ignored the signal and broke the barrier and ran the car and after breaking the three barriers car was stopped and this car was driven by Punit Singh son of the complainant and in physical checking of son of the complainant, police got one pistol pouch from his pent along with 6 alive bullets of 32 bore and police lodged the said FIR under Section 336, 279, 427, 253, 186 IPC and under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. In this case, it is not revealed that the said accident was naturally occurred and there is no fault of driver of the car. But this case shows that Punit Singh broke the three barriers, so, it means that this accident happened due do the negligence of Punit Singh and he has intentionally violated the rules and regulations of the driving. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint with cost.
- In support of this claim the complainant has tendered various documents and on the other hand, the opposite parties have also tendered certain documents in support of his version.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
- The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the car insurance policy from the OPs for the period from 31.3.2017 to 27.3.2018 but during the validity of the insurance policy, the insured car met with an accident and repaired the insured car by the complainant at his own charges. After repairing the same, the complainant approached to the Ops for insurance and OPs refused to accept the claim of the complainant. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.
- The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant is not entitled for any claim as the car in question met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the complainant. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- It is an admitted fact that vehicle in question was owned by the complainant. It is undisputed that FIR was lodged against the son of the complainant under section under Section 336, 279, 427, 253, 186 IPC and under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. It is also undisputed that from the son of the complainant recovered one pistol pouch from his pent along with 6 alive bullets of 32 bore.
- The controversial point in the present complaint is squarely covered by the order/judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as National Insurance Company Vs ASHALATA BHOWMIK AND ORS, decided in Civil Appeal No. 9100 of 2018, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-
We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. It is an admitted position that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. The deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act. The deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving. A Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (Smt) and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 263, was considering a similar case where the owner himself was driving the vehicle which due to his negligence dashed with a tree on the roadside as a result of which he died. The Court held that the claim petition filed by his LRs was not maintainable. It was held thus:-
The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.
Liability of the insurance Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise".
- In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the insured vehicle met with an accident due to negligent driving of the son of the complainant. In the absence of any clear, cogent and convincing averments in the complaint, we feel, that the complain ant is not entitled to any relief, therefore, the complaint stands dismissed. However, no order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
- (RANJIT SINGH)
(RANVIR KAUR)
MEMBER
CC No.290 of 2018
Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
April,28 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
