PER:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is owner of vehicle No. PB-02-BU-9887 Model Bolero which was duly insured under the Policy No. 200325233500074 with the opposite party. The aforesaid insurance was commenced on 29.5.2015 and valid up to 28.5.2016. The said vehicle was being driven by Gurbir Singh son of Manjit Singh resident of Village Saido Lehal Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib District Amritsar who was having a learning valid licence which was duly issued by the DTO Amritsar vide No 32289/215 dated 28.8.2015 which was valid upto 27.2.2016 and copy of the same had already been supplied by the complainant to the opposite party. However the copy of the same is again attached with the complaint for LMV-CAB and LMV-GV at the time of accident, Mr. Balkar Singh son of Massa Singh resident of House No 180 Village Lolla Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib District Amritsar was sitting besides him and was holding a valid licence No BB-0219980209972 and same is valid up to 30.11.2017. The complainant has supplied to the opposite party all the documents pertaining to copy of driving licence of Gurbir Singh and copy of the driving licence of Balkar Singh and DDR No 4 dated 11.11.2015 which was duly recorded at Police Post Wadala Granthian, certificate of registration of vehicle and pollution control certificate and other documents of certificate of exemption No 2758/Ex./DTO Amritsar dated 11.7.2012 but however inspite of providing all the aforesaid documents to the opposite party, the opposite party has failed to make the payment of compensation to the complainant. On the intimation of the accident, a surveyor was appointed by the opposite party. After that proper inquiry was conducted by the company and the said documents were also provided to the employee of the company. The damage estimated quotation was prepared by the Universal Motors G.T. Road Amritsar from where the said vehicle was purchased. The damage estimate report is Rs 3,37,732/- is also provided. So far, the opposite party has not released the aforesaid amount to the claimant though all the documents have already been supplied to the opposite party by the complainant. The complainant through his counsel served a legal notice dated 7.10.2016 upon the opposite but the opposite party again failed to comply with the said legal notice. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs:-
(a) The opposite party be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,37,732.66/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. thereon.
(b) A compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant may also be granted in his favour and against the opposite party.
(c) Costs of proceedings of Rs. 5,500/- may also be granted in his favour.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this commission, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed. As per complaint the vehicle was being driven by Gurbir Singh S/o Manjit Singh and his driving licence was issued for MCWG/LMV, whereas the vehicle which was being driven by the driver that was goods vehicle as per R.C., therefore, the driver was required driving licence for LMV/GV at the time of alleged accident, but the driver was not having legal and valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any claim as terms and conditions of the policy has been violated. The said Gurbir Singh got the DL issued for transport vehicle from 25.02.2016 to 24.02.2019 after the alleged occurrence. The vehicle of complainant was being driven by driver who was not authorized to drive transport vehicle at the time of accident. The motor vehicle act clearly says that no person can drive vehicle in public place unless he/she holds valid and effective driving licence. The relevant section of act is reproduced as under:
a. 3. Necessity for driving licence.
b. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.
The story concocted in complaint by the complainant is totally false and fabricated. The copy of driving licence supplied by complainant clearly establishes that the same was not valid at the time of accident. The statement given to investigator, report of investigator and other relevant papers including DDR does not prove the fact that Mr. Balbir Singh was sitting with vehicle at the time of alleged loss and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the this ground alone. There is no deficiency on the part of insurance company because after intimation of claim surveyor was appointed by the insurance company for assessment of loss in accordance to certain policy terms and conditions of insurance policy. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,62,769/- in accordance to certain policy terms and depreciation under the policy coverage. However, assessed loss was to be paid only subject to admissibility of claim and completion of required claim papers. The baseless demand of complainant is not maintainable and the quantum of claim cannot be more than assessed loss under the policy terms. That complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, not entitled for any claim. The `complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, as the complaint has been filed without any cause of action. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. C-W1/A alongwith documents i.e. cop[y of the learner licence of Gurbir Singh Ex. C-1, copy of permanent licence of Gurbir Singh Ex. C-1/B, copy of the DDR dated 11.11.2015 Ex. C-2, copy of the RC of vehicle No. PB-02-BU-9887 Ex. C-3, copy of the pollution certificate Ex. C-4, copy of the quotation No. QTN 6D 000354 Ex. C-5, copy of the legal notice dated 7.10.2016 Ex. C-6, copy of the postal receipt dated 7.10.2016 Ex. C-7, copy of the driving licence of Balkar Singh Ex. C-8, copy of policy Ex. C-9, affidavit of Gurbir Singh Ex. CW2/A, affidavit of Balkar Singh so of Massa Singh Ex. CW3/A and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla Ex. OP1, copy of policy Ex. OP2, copy of survey report Ex. OP3, copy of the affidavit of surveyor Ex. OP-4, copy of investigation report Ex. OP5, copy of statement of Gurmeet Singh Ex. OP-6, copy of statement of Gurdev Singh Ex. OP-7, copy of the verification report Ex. OP-8, copy of repudiation letter dated 28.7.2016 Ex. OP-9, copy of postal receipt Ex. OP-10, affidavit of Sh. A.P. Singh Claim investigator Ex. OP-11 and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6 The opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 28.7.2016 Ex. OP-9 which is reproduced as follows:-
- On scrutinizing the driving license of the Mr.Gurbir Singh (D/L No PB-0220140275950 L.A., authorized to drive MCWG, LMV NT class of vehicles) who was driving the insured vehicle at the material time of accident, it was confirmed that the D/L is not valid to drive LMV GV class of vehicle.
- As per Motor vehicle Act "(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective and valid driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a Motor cab or motorcycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75) unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so.
- Further As per Policy Schedule under Driver Clause: "Any person including the insured Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989.
- In view of the above stated facts, for breach of the 'Drivers' Clause' of the motor insurance policy, the aforesaid claim stands repudiated.
Now question arises as to whether the driver of the vehicle was having valid driving license at the time of accident ?
It is not disputed that the driver was having learning license at the time of accident on 11.11.2015. According to complainant, one Balkar Singh son of Massa Singh was sitting with him and he was having valid license at the time of accident. Now we see which type of vehicle the complainant was driving at the time of accident. The complainant has placed on record registration certificate of the vehicle Ex. C-3 which shows the class of the vehicle LGV which means ‘Light Goods Vehicle’. The complainant has placed on record driving license of said Gurbir Singh Ex.C1/B which shows that he was issued license for LMV,GV on 25.2.2016 as such, said Gurbir Singh was issued license for Light Motor vehicle, Goods Vehicle on 25.2.2016 and the accident took place on 11.11.2015. The vehicle of complainant was being driven by driver who was not authorized to drive transport vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant has failed to prove on record that said Balkar Singh was sitting besides said Gurbir Singh because the complainant himself has placed on record DDR in which Gurbir Singh has made statement before the Police authority but in said DDR he has not mentioned that said Balkar Singh was sitting with him at the time of alleged accident. Moreover, surveyor in this case was appointed and the statement given to investigator, report of investigator and other relevant papers including DDR does not prove the fact that Mr. Balbir Singh was sitting with driving in the vehicle at the time of accident. The motor vehicle act clearly says that no person can drive vehicle in public place unless he/she holds valid and effective driving licence. The relevant section of act is reproduced as under:
a. 3. Necessity for driving licence.
b. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.
7 The complainant has misrepresented the facts at the time of submitting his claim. Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have to be strictly construed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India vs. Garg Sons International 2013 (1) SCALE 410 (SC) held in Para Nos.8 to 11 as under:
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. (Vide: M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 567).
9. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely. The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are consequently, the terms of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the Insurance Company must also be read strictly. The contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonize the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon. (Vide : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan AIR 1999 SC 3252; Polymat India P. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 286; M/s. Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Company, AIR 2010 SC 3400; and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Dewan Chand Ram Saran AIR 2012 SC 2829).
10. In Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 2493, it was held: “An insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself. The endeavour of the court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. The court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in rewriting the contract or substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties. (See also: Sikka Papers Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2834).”
11. Thus, it is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the garb of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement.”
8 While repudiating the claim of the complainant the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the claim has been validly repudiated by the opposite party.
9 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
15.11.2022
