Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/258

Rajesh kakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Mehic

20 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 258 of 20.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   20.01.2016

 

Rajesh Kakkar son of Sh.Raj Pal r/o 704, Godhewala Moga.

….. Complainant

Versus 

 

1.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 7^th floor, Surya Tower, 108, The Mall, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

2.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Cross road, Wadala (W), Mumbai, through its CMD.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                    :        Sh.Gobind Batta, Advocate

For OPs                        :        Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate

 

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant, owner of Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.JK-02-AS-2799 got the same fully insured from OP1 vide policy NO.2001532311004836 for Rs.8 lac by paying premium of Rs.25,106/- for the period from 14.8.2013 to 13.8.2014. At the time of selling of the policy, employees of the OPs assured the complainant that all kinds of losses, damages and accident etc are covered under the policy. That vehicle met with fire accident while being driven near village Shah Bukkar, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur on 6.1.2014. The vehicle was totally damaged. DDR No.6 dated 6.1.2014 at Police Post Shah Bukkar, P.S.Zira, Ferozepur was got lodged. Thereafter, complainant visited office of OP1 for lodging the claim and then surveyor was appointed. All the necessary documents were submitted by the complainant and other formalities were also complied with. Complainant kept on putting grievance regarding non-payment of the claim, but to no effect. There is no ground for withholding the payment of the claimed amount, but the same withheld. Legal notice was also served through counsel on 16.5.2014, but to no effect. By pleading deficiency in service, claim for amount of Rs.8 lac along with compensation for mental suffering and hardship along with litigation expenses of Rs.2 lac put forth.

2.                          In written statement filed by the OP1, it is pleaded interalia as if claim petition is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts. Admittedly, the policy in question was purchased, for which, the claim was lodged by the complainant with OP1. That claim was entertained, registered and processed by deputing surveyor, who submitted report. OPs also deputed Royal Associates Investigating & Detective Agency for checking the genuineness of the claim. That investigator submitted report dated 21.2.2014 to the effect that cause of fire was found correct, but name of driver claimed by the insured as Pawan Kumar seems to be not genuine because as per DDR Rajesh Kumar was driving the Innova at the time of accident. Through that report, it is claimed that insured avoided meeting of deputed surveyor with Pawan Kumar. Even as per that report fire tender was not called and the same is an act of gross negligence on the part of insured. Concealment of name of the driver alleged to be breach of condition of the policy. After receipt of the survey report, documents and report of investigator, officials of company after applying their mind, sent letters dated 5.8.2014 and 20.8.2014 for calling upon the complainant to supply the documents, but complainant failed to supply the same. Lastly, a final notice dated 16.9.2014 was sent to the complainant for calling upon him to supply the documents, failing which, his claim case will be treated as closed and further correspondence will not be entertained. Those documents were not supplied and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Driver of the vehicle himself was negligent.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Pawan Kumar and documents EX.C1 to Ex.C5 and Ex.CW2/A and then closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager(Legal) of OP and even tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R18 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone advanced. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, vehicle in question was insured at the time when the same caught fire, while being driven. Insurance Cover Note Ex.C1, copy of the registration certificate of the insured vehicle Ex.C2, copy of driving license of Pawan Kumar Ex.CW2/A, copy of DDR No.6 dated 6.1.2014 of Police Post Shah Bukkar, P.S.Zira, Ferozepur Ex.C3, copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the Ops Ex.C4 through postal receipt Ex.C5 are the documents produced on record by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant lodged the claim qua catching of fire by the insured vehicle and thereafter, surveyor was deputed, who through report Ex.R18 claimed that factum of taking place of the incident is genuine and cause of fire also was correct. However, the surveyor through that report claimed as if Pawan Kumar seems to be not genuine driver because as per DDR Rajesh Kumar was driving innova at the time of accident. In view of that it was found by the surveyor that innova car in question was driven by Rajesh Kumar and not by Pawan Kumar. If really Pawan Kumar would have been driving the car at the time of accident, then complainant would have arranged meeting of the surveyor with Pawan Kumar, but the same was not got done and that is why in the column of opinion of report Ex.R18, it is specifically mentioned that insured/complainant avoided arrangement of meeting of surveyor with Pawan Kumar. Had really Pawan Kumar been driver of the car in question at the time of incident, then certainly the complainant for getting his claim through would have arranged meeting of the surveyor with Pawan Kumar. That was avoided and as such reasonable inference deductible is that Pawan Kumar may not have been driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Findings recorded by the surveyor through report Ex.R18 qua Pawan Kumar not being the genuine driver as such are plausible.

7.                Copy of DDR qua the fire incidence in question produced on record as Ex.C3 by the complainant, but as Ex.R13 by the Ops. After going through this document Ex.C3=Ex.R13, it is made out as if this DDR lodged at the instance of ASI Nishan Singh on 6.1.2014 immediately after the accident. In this DDR Ex.C3=Ex.R13, it is mentioned that when ASI Nishan Singh was returning back from Shah Abbu Bukkar, Mallu Badhian, Sherpur Takhtuwala through main road to Police Post Shah Abbu Bukkar, then he found one innova vehicle bearing registration No.JK-02-AS-2799 having suddenly caught fire and that is why he saved persons sitting in the car. As per this DDR, the said car stood altogether burnt within 10-15 minutes. This incidence took place due to natural circumstances and without any fault of anyone as per DDR. Name of Rajesh Kakkar s/o Rajpal r/o Godhewal, H.No.704, Moga alone is mentioned in this DDR. Name of Pawan Kumar is not at all mentioned in this DDR. Had Pawan Kumar been driving the vehicle or the person present at the time of incidence, then DDR would have been lodged by him or at least his name would have been mentioned in the DDR, being one of the occupants of the car. Non mentioning the name of Pawan Kumar in the earliest ever version suffered through DDR Ex.C3=Ex.R13 enough to hold that report Ex.R18 of the surveyor is correct that presence of Pawan Kumar as driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident is not proved.

8.                Complainant through his affidavit Ex.CA claimed as if he lodged report No.6 dated 6.6.2016 at P.S.Shah Bukkar, P.S.Zira, District Ferozepur, but that report Ex.C3=Ex.R13 is lodged by ASI Nishan Singh and not by the complainant, even though the name of the complainant is mentioned therein. It is not at all mentioned  in affidavit Ex.CA or anywhere in the complaint that Pawan Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time when the same caught fire. In the absence of such plea being taken in the complaint, it is obvious that affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Pawan Kumar tendered in evidence by putting forth a concocted story qua driving of the vehicle by him(Pawan Kumar). If name of Pawan Kumar as driver would have been mentioned in the complaint, then OPs would have duly rebutted the claim of the complainant in that respect, but that has not been done by the complainant and as such, due to suppression of material facts, as to who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of incidence, it has to be held that the complainant has suppressed the material facts. So production of copy of driving license Ex.CW2/A=Ex.R14 of Pawan Kumar will not serve any purpose.

9.                Copy of driving license of complainant has not at all been produced to show that he was holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of incidence in question. Normally this vehicle used to be driven by complainant himself is a fact borne from his statement dated 11.1.2014 recorded by the investigator. So even if all the documents may have been submitted by the complainant with Ops, but despite that in view of the fact that driving license of the complainant was demanded repeatedly from the complainant by the OPs through letters Ex.R1, Ex.R3 and Ex.R5 by sending the same through registered post qua which postal receipts produced on record as Ex.R2, Ex.R4 and Ex.R6, but the same has not been produced and as such it has to be held that complainant deliberately has not submitted his driving license despite demand. Invoice Ex.R7 shows that the complainant is the owner of the insured vehicle and that is why name of the insured mentioned in survey report Ex.R8 as owner. Request for cancellation of the RC submitted by the insurer through letter Ex.R9, sent through postal receipt Ex.R10 and copy of insurance cover note Ex.R12=Ex16 has also been produced by the OPs along with certificate of  registration as Ex.R15. Copy of claim form has been produced on record as Ex.R17 by the OPs. All these documents only proves the fact about lodging of claim or of the vehicle being insured, but they do not establish that actually Pawan Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time of incident.

10.              As per law laid down in case Sago Packaging Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another-III(2015)CPJ-5B(CN(WB), it is always desirable that one who seeks justice must place on record every factual aspect of dispute, so as to enable adjudicator to arrive at just decision. In case some documents in support of the claim of insurance demanded by the surveyor or the insurer, but those are not submitted without due explanation, then dismissal of the complaint in insurance claim of theft will be appropriate. Same is the position in the case before us because here though driving license of complainant Rajesh Kakkar repeatedly demanded by issue of letters Ex.R1, Ex.R3 and Ex.R5, but despite that the same has not been submitted with the insurer and nor produced on record in this case by the complainant. So complainant virtually seeking relief by suppressing material facts and as such, withholding of the claim of insurance is quite appropriate. Being so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.              In policy cover note Ex.C1 itself it is mentioned that the insured vehicle will be driven by the person holding an effective driving license at the time of accident. The car in question caught fire while being driven is the claim of the complainant and as such, it was the duty of the complainant, being insured to prove that the vehicle was driven by a person holding valid and effective driving license at the time of incidence in question. That fact is not proved because of non submission of the driving license of complainant, who actually was driving the vehicle at the time of incidence. Owing to breach of this essential condition of the policy, the repudiation/withholding of the claim is appropriate.

12.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal and same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of this order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                               Member                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:20.01.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.