BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 75 of 2012
Date of Institution : 16.4.2012
Date of Decision : 25.5.2016
Amin Chand son of Sh.Sheo Karan, r/o village Balasar, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company, SCO No.135-136, Sector-9C, Chandigarh through its Director.
..…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.N.Grover, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.H.S.Raghav, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle Make TATA 407 bearing registration no. HR-57/3329 from opposite parties vide policy no. 2004702334003888 for the period from 21.3.2011 to 20.3.2012. The said policy was a package policy covering all types of risks. On 25.6.2011, the said Canter met with an accident near B.S.F. Hisar with a Swift car no. HR-20T/4849, as a result of which, the Canter suffered heavy damages. FIR no.491 dt. 25.6.2011 in this regard was lodged against the driver of the Canter u/s 279/304-A/337/427 IPC in police Station Sadar Hisar. Thereafter, the complainant lodged his claim with the opposite party and submitted all the documents/bills etc. to the opposite party, who appointed its Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The opposite party sent a letter dt. 20.8.2011 stating that “as the driver of the Canter was not holding valid and effective driving licence for driving the commercial vehicle, which is a violation under the driving clause of the policy”. On 14.9.2011, the complainant sent a request letter to opposite party that Goverdhan s/o Sh.Arjun was the driver of the Canter at the time of accident and as soon as the driving licence of driver is available, the same would be supplied to the company for further verification and on 19..3.2012, the complainant also sent the request alongwith the valid driving licence of the driver, but the opposite party did not sanction any claim till date despite repeated requests of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint for insured amount Rs.55290/- alongwith compensation for harassment, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party contested the case by filing reply. It is pleaded that vehicle of the complainant was used in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the Traffic Rules under the M.V. Act because as per the documents and police challan papers submitted by the insured himself, Goverdhan s/o Sh.Arjun was the driver of vehicle and he was holding driving licence no.11490/GDR issued from D.T.O., Gurdaspur (Pb.). On verification from the said issuing authority, Gurdaspur, it has been reported that said driving licence is not issued in the name of alleged driver as per their record. Thus, on this ground, the claim of complainant was not maintainable.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.CW1/A-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1 to Ex.C15, whereas, the opposite party has tendered in evidence documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties. We are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the case of the complainant.
5. There is no dispute before us that complainant was the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-57-3329, which was duly insured with the insurance company, for the period from 21.3.2011 to 20.3.2012, There is also no dispute before us that said vehicle met with an accident on the way from Hisar to Sirsa and FIR in this regard was lodged in the concerned police station. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was being driven by Goverdhan s/o Sh.Arjun .
6. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party mainly on the ground that as per verification from the issuing Authority, Gurdaspur, the said driving licence was not issued in the name of said driver and thus, this is violation of policy condition. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that as per letter Ex.C17 dated 26.9.2011 issued by the District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur to Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, the record of said driving licence was lost and thus, it cannot be said that the said driving licence was fake. Moreover, ld. counsel for complainant also drawn our attention towards other driving licence placed on record Ex.C4 issued by District Transport Officer, Tuansang (Nagaland) dated 3.11.2009 and the same is valid upto 2.11.2012.
7. After hearing the ld. counsel for both the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that one the one hand, the complainant is alleging that the driving licence of said driver Goverdhan was issued by the Transport Authority, Gurdaspur and on the other hand, he has placed on record Ex.C4 the second driving licence issued by the District Transport Officer Tuansang (Nagaland). Thus, the complainant is misleading this Forum by mentioning two licences, which are not valid and legal in the eyes of law. As per law, a person cannot hold two driving licences at the same time. Thus, the complainant himself is estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct. There is no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant by the opposite party.
8. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
