Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/439/2011

Amrik Singh S/o Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Rajoria

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 439 of 2013.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 06.05.2011

                                                                                                Date of decision: 10.06.2016.

Amrik Singh aged about 40 years son of Shri Jaswant Singh, Resident of H. No. 331-L, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                                                        Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited having Divisional Office Opposite Madhu Hotel, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.   

                                                                                                                                                                 …Respondent.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.  V.K.Rajoria, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Amrik Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay Rs.1,61,100/- on account of damaged of truck and further to pay Rs. 25000/- on account of mental tension harassment as well as Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is a registered owner of truck bearing registration No. HR-58B/1088    (Annexure C-4)  which was duly insured with the OP i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vide policy cover note bearing No. 94921(Annexure C-2) valid w.e.f. 12.01.2010 to 11.01.2011 for a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/-. The truck of the complainant met with an accident and an FIR bearing No. 230 dated 8.5.2010 under section 279/337/427 IPC was registered and due to accident the truck of the complainant was badly damaged. An intimation regarding the accident and damage to the truck of complainant was immediately given to the OP Insurance Company. After receiving the intimation a surveyor was appointed by the insurance company who surveyed and found that the vehicle of complainant has totally damaged. Thereafter, estimate was also handed over to the OP Company. The complainant had also fulfilled all the formalities and had submitted all the relevant documents including route permit, insurance policy, RC, Certificate of fitness and driving license of the driver and the OP duly verified all the documents and assured the complainant that within few days the damaged claim shall be passed. Thereafter, the complainant got repaired his vehicle from Mehboob Body Repair, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar and Pawan Denting & Welding Saharanpur and submitted all the bills to the OP. Thereafter, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.12.2010 on the ground that the driving license of driver was fake. The letter issued by the OP on 14.12.2010 is not legal and having no force in the eye of law. The act and conduct of the OP is clear cut deficient in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the claimant lodged an OD claim with the Op and produce the particular of driving license of Roshan Lal son of Shri Jiya Lal bearing No. 7817/MTR/04 allegedly issued by licensing authority Mathura and when the said license wasgot verified from the Licensing Authority, Mathura, they reported that license No. 7817/MTR/04 was issued in the name of one Bijender Kumar son of Ganesh, R/o Rathora, Nand Gaon, Mathura for Motorcycle and LMV w.e.f. 14.06.2004 to 13.06.2024 and the same is never issued in the name of Roshan Lal son of Jiya Lal. The driver of the vehicle No. HR-58B-1088 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident, so, the claim is not payable and as such the claim stands repudiated, vide letter dated 14.12.2010. As such the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merit, it has been submitted that an intimation of accident was received and Sh. M.L. Garg an independent and Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed who surveyed the said vehicle at M/s Mehmood Body Repairer, Yamuna Nagar and gave his report dated 19.6.2010 assessing the loss of Rs. 51,580/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy but when the license given by the complainant alongwith claim form was got verified from the concerned Licensing Authority Mathura, it was found fake, so, the claim of the complainant was not payable and the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 14.12.2010 and intimation was sent to the complainant.  As such the complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous, may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of release order of truck as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of insurance cover note as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Form No.38 Certificate of fitness as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of registration certificate as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of Form permit as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of Form No. 47 for Tourist/National permit as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of estimate of Pawan Denting & Welding as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of estimate of Mehmood as Annexure C-9 , Repudiation letter dated 14.12.2010 as Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. R.S.Kalra, Divisional Manager as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of claim form as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of driving license as Annexure R-3, Affidavit of Sh. M.L.Garg, Surveyor & Loss Assessor as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of surveyor report as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of investigator report as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of verification of license as Annexure R-7, Photo copy of claim repudiation letter as Annexure R-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant is registered owner of truck bearing registration No. HR58-B/1088 which was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide policy cover note bearing No. 94921  valid from 12.01.2010 to 11.01.2011 for a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/- and met with an accident on 08.05.2010 during the currency of insurance policy. It is further not disputed that surveyor and loss assessor was deputed and Rs. 51580/- was assessed on “Net Loss on Repair Basis” after applying the relevant depreciation clause and subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question as Annexure R-5. The main question involved in the complaint is whether the driver Sh. Roshan Lal of the vehicle in question was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident or not? 

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has spent huge amount on the repair of his truck and all the bills have been submitted to the OP insurance company but the OP Insurance Company has illegally repudiated his claim on false and frivolous grounds that Sh. Roshan Lal was not having a valid and effect driving license at the time of accident whereas the driver of complainant Sh. Roshan Lal was holding a valid and effective driving license at relevant time and referred the case law titled as Karam Singh vs. Balwinder Kaur and others 2002 ACJ page 697, (P&H) High Court and another case law titled as Suraj Ram vs. Anchal Singh (died) and others 1997(3) PLR page 844 and also case titled as Rukmani and others vs. New India Assurance Co. ltd. and others, 1999 ACJ page 171.

9.                     Lastly, prayed that OP Insurance company  be directed to pay the amount of repair of truck in question.

10.                   The  counsel for the OP Insurance Company hotly argued that the driving license of Roshan lal was got verified from the Licensing Authority, Mathura and they have reported that the License is fake one as the driving license No. 7817/MTR/04 was issued in favour Sh. Bijender Kumar son of Sh. Ganesh r/o Rithora Nandgaon (Mathura)  not in the name of Roshan Lal meaning thereby that driver of the complainant Roshan Lal was not having a valid and effective driving license and the OP Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant being violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy Annexure R-1 and as such the claim is not payable and referred the case law titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Gurucharan Singh, 2010 ACJ page 2044 Supreme Court wherein it has been held that Forged license- liability of insurance company- Insured filed complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Insurance Company and District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that driving license of the driver of vehicle was forged and as such there was no deficiency in service of insurance company- State Commission placing reliance on Swaran Singh’s case, 2004 ACJ page 1 (SC), reversed the order of District Forum- National Commission confirmed the order of State Commission- whether ratio of decision in Swaran Sigh’s case 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), is applicable in a dispute between the insured and insurance company arising out of own damage claim- Held No; decision is applicable to a case of third party; order of District Forum restored. (2007 ACJ 721 (SC) followed).

11.                   Further learned counsel for the OP referred the case law titled as Kuljeet Singh Versus Surinder Kaur and others, (2015-4) PLR page 273, wherein it has been held that Driving License- Driver of the offending vehicle belongs to a village in Malrerkotla District Sangrur- He produced the driving license issued by Regional Transport Authority, Mathura, it could be a prima facie reason to suspect that as to why the license of a far away place was produced with which driver had no connection- Recovery rights for the insurance company were rightly granted.   

12.                   Learned counsel for the OP further referred the case law titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajnesh Tandaon, 2014(2) CLT page 272 (National Commission) wherein it has been held that Driving License- Held- Once certificate of verification of D/L issued by Licensing Authority placed on record by insurance company- No need to produce affidavit of L/A in evidence- It is incumbent upon complainant to rebut the verification report.

13.                   Learned counsel for the OP referred the another case law titled as Mukesh Khosla Versus Smt. Amandeep kaur and others, 2015(1) PLR page 324 (P &H) wherein it has been held that- Where the license is found to be fake- the State is under obligation to file complaint or register an FIR- Where during the proceedings that the driver has more than one license, the Tribunal will take immediate notice of the same and recommend to the concerned police authorities to register FIR- After appointment/engaging of a driver, the owner shall seek information under the RTI Act/or any other provision available immediately regarding the genuineness of the driving license from the office of issuing authority within thirty days from the date of such appointment/engaged- directions issued.

 14.                  Learned counsel for the OP further referred the case law titled as Jitmani Bhagat Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, 2012(3) CPC page 53 wherein it has been held that Renewal of fake license cannot make it valid if originally it was fake one- Repudiation of claim justified.  

15                    In the present case the driving license of the complainant was issued by the Licensing Authority Mathura on 10.06.2004 which is evident from Annexure C-7. In order to substantiate its argument that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving license, the OP Insurance company is relying upon Annexure R-7 which is verification report of one Sh. Arun Investigator, Mathura wherein it has been clearly mentioned that as per office record DL No. 7817/MTR/2004 was issued in the favour Sh. Bijender Kumar son of Sh. Ganesh R/o Rithora Nandgaon (Mathura) not in the name of Roshan Lal driver.  Furthermore, when the verification of DL issued by the Licensing Authority was placed on file by the OP Insurance Company, then it was the duty of the complainant to rebut the verification report but the complainant did not do so. It means the driver of the complainant was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident dated 08.05.2010. Hence, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP insurance company vide letter dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure R-8) as the insured was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Law cited by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the law cited by the counsel for the OP is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

16.                   Consequently, keeping in view the above noted facts and law cited by OP, this Forum is of the considered opinion that complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident i.e. on 08.05.2010 and OP Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

17                    Resultantly we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 10.06.2016.                    

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                               

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                                MEMBER