THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 281 of 14
Date of Institution : 20.05.2014
Date of Decision : 21.05.2015
Mr. Vikram Makhni Director Deep Carpets Manufacturing Ltd. R/o 5, RB Duni Chand Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer service through its branch office at District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Branch manager
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. P.N.Khanna,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Vikram Makhni under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got insured his car Mercedes Benz E250 bearing registration No. PB-02-BJ-0016 with the opposite party for the period from 25.10.2013 to 24.10.2014 on payment of premium of Rs. 76313/-. According to the complainant the said vehicle met with an accident on 8.4.2014. Opposite party was immediately informed about the loss to the vehicle . The surveyor was appointed by the opposite party to assess the loss, who directed the complainant to took the vehicle to the authorized service centre of Mercedes Co. Joshi Auto Zone Pvt.Ltd where the vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs. 2,45,139/- plus Rs. 330/- as towing charges . But the opposite party did not make the payment to Joshi Auto Zone Pvt.Ltd. The complainant approached the opposite party to make payment of Rs. 2,45,139/- but the opposite party neither repudiated the claim of the complainant nor made the payment of loss . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 2,45,139/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant registered the claim with the opposite party on 9.4.2014 for the loss occurred to the vehcile on 7.4.2014. On receipt of claim intimation it was duly registered under policy No. 0151000282 which was valid from 25.10.2013 to 24.10.2014 and claim No. 620768461 was allotted to the complainant. It was submitted that during the claim intiamtion it was informed that Mr. Virend Singh Makhani was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident . After receipt of claim intimation independent surveyor Sanjiv Khanna was appointed to inspect and assess the loss. During the process of claim it was again informed by the complainant that Mr. Virend Singh Makhani was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident and it was also informed that the said Virend Singh Makhani holds a Driving Licence No. 666/09-10 valid upto 24.6.2030. Opposite party also appointed an independent surveyor Er.Saranpal Singh to get the driving licence of Mr. Virend Singh Makhani verified from the DTO Amritsar and it was confirmed from the DTO Amritsar that the driving licence of Mr.Virend Singh Makhani has not been issued by their office. It was submitted that since the driving licence was found fake which amounts to violation of the Driver Clause and condition No. 8 of the policy which reproduced as under:-
“Driver Clause is stated herein:-
“Any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.”
3. As such the present complaint is legally not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-2, copy of policy Ex.C-3, welcome letter Ex.C-4.
5. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Mohd.Azhar Wasi, Head North Zone Claim Ex.OP1, affidavit of Mr. Saranpal Singh, Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP/2, copy of claim notification Ex.OP/3, copy of driving licence of Virend Singh Makhani Ex.OP/4, copy of verification obtained from DTO Asr.Ex.OP/5, copy of letter written to M/s. Deep Carpets dated 12.5.2014 Ex.OP/6, copy of postal receipt of the letter Ex.OP/7, copy of OD claim note dated 22.5.2014 Ex.OP/8, copy of letter written to M/s. Deep Carpets dated 22.5.2014 Ex.OP/9, copy of form Ex.OP/10, certified copy of the Insurance policy with terms and conditions Ex.OP/11.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his vehicle Mercedes Benz E250 car bearing registration No. PB-02-BJ-0016 insured with the opposite party for the period from 25.10.2013 to 24.10.2014 vide policy Ex.OP11. The complainant submitted that the said vehicle met with an accident on 8.4.2014. Intimation was given to the opposite party immediately. Opposite party appointed surveyor to assess the loss . The surveyor directed the complainant to take the vehicle to authorized service centre of the Mercedes Co.i.e.Joshi Auto Zone for repair. Resultantly the vehicle was taken to said Joshi Auto Pvt.Ltd where the vehicle was repaired at the cost of Rs. 2,45,139/- plus Rs. 3300/- paid by the complainant for toeing the vehicle. The opposite party did not pay the aforesaid amount to Joshi Autozone Pvt.Ltd inspite of the fact that insurance policy was cashless and the complainant had to make payment to the repairer. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party for the payment of Rs. 2,45,139/- but the opposite party neither made the payment of loss nor repudiated the claim of the complainant and complainant was forced to file the present complaint.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party is that the complainant referred the claim with the opposite party on 9.4.2014 for loss to the insured vehicle in accident which occurred on 7.4.2014 which was duly registered with claim No. 620768461. It was informed by the complainant that vehicle in question was being driven by Mr. Virend Singh Makhani at the time of accident . It was again confirmed by the complainant in the claim form Ex.OP10 that the vehicle in question was being driven by Virend Singh Makhani at the time of accident and he was holding driving license bearing No. 666/09-10 valid upto 24.6.2030 copy of which is Ex.OP4. Said driving license was got verified from the Licensing Authority i.e.DTO Amritsar by the surveyor and the DTO Amritsar vide their report dated 22.4.2014 Ex.OP5 reported that driving license Nno. 666 dated 25.6.2010 in the name of Virend Singh Makhani son of Vikram Singh Makhani is not issued by their office. Hence it is fake one. The matter was reported to the complainant firm by the opposite party vide letter Ex.OP6 dated 12.5.2014 that driving license of the driver namely Virend Singh Makhani was stated to be fake and the complainant was required to submit their comments on the said report , within 5 days . But the complainant did not submit any explanation. As per the drivers clause of the policy any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence. Therefore, the opposite party shows its inability to entertain the claim of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that, no doubt the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Mercedes Benz bearing registration No.PB-02-BJ-0016 was insured with the opposite party for the period from 25.10.2013 to 24.10.2014 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 8.4.2014 . The matter was reported by the complainant to the opposite party and the opposite party appointed surveyor Sharanpal Singh to verify and assess the loss. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the vehicle in question was being driven by Mr. Virend Singh Makhani Son of Vikram Makhani at the time of accident and the complainant produced driving licence of Virend Singh Makhani Ex.OP4. The surveyor got this licence verified from the Licensing Authority i.e. DTO Amritsar vide letter Ex.OP5. DTO Amritsar verified its record and submitted the report on this letter Ex.OP5 that driving licence No. 666 dated 25.6.2010 in the name of Virend Singh Makhani was not issued by its office. This licence is not valid and it is a fake one. Opposite party wrote letter to the complainant dated 12.5.2014 Ex.OP6 through registered post, postal receipt of which is Ex.OP7 telling the complainant that the driving licence of Virend Singh Makhani was proved to be fake one and the complainant was required to submit their comments on this report. But the complainant did not submit any reply ; thereby the complainant admitted that the driving licence of Virend Singh Makhani , who was driving the vehicle at the time of said accident, was not valid , rather fake one. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition titled as Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Shivakumara S 2014(2) CLT 87 that where it is proved that at the time of accident the driver was not having an effective driving licence, it is a clear case of violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy particularly Drivers clause and the opposite party was justified in repudiating the Insurance Claim. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj 2008(2) Apex Court Judgements 488 (SC).
10. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that present accident took place as some flying stone hit the vehicle as a result of which the driver lost control and the accident took place, so the accident took place without fault on the part of the driver, as such driving licence of the driver is not relevant in the present case. In this regard he relied upon the findings of Hon'ble Odisha State Commission in case Santosh Kumar Jena Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd & Others 2014(4) CLT 190. We have gone through the contents of the aforesaid ruling cited by the Ld.counsel for the complainant. The facts of the present case are totally different from the facts of the ruling cited by the Ld.counsel for the complainant because in that case some vehicle hit the vehicle of the insured, the fault was on the part of the opposite party, as such the Hon'ble Odisha State Commission held that in that eventuality as the accident took place due to fault on the part of other vehicle, so the driving licence of the victim driver becomes redundant. But in the present case the accident solely took place due to driving of the vehicle by driver Virend Singh Makhani as he could not control the vehicle. Had he been an expert driver, he could have controlled the vehicle in such eventuality , if any stone had struck the vehicle of the complainant.
11. Consequently we hold that opposite party was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
21.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
