BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.174 of 2016
Date of Instt. 12.04.2016
Date of Decision: 25.07.2017
Sh. Deepak Verma S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Verma, 11, Modern Colony, Near All India Radio, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 3rd Floor, Shanti Tower, SCO No.37, Puda Complex, Jalandhar-144001. Through Authorized Signatory,
….… Opposite party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Shekhar Parbhakar, Adv Counsel for complainant.
Sh. AK Arora, Adv & Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv Counsels for OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint presented by complainant, wherein alleged that he had purchased a Tata-407 Truck in the year 2015 bearing Registration No.PB-08-CX-4066 and Engine No.497SP67HVY630472. The OP had insured the above said vehicle under policy No.0155131695 by deducting the premium to this effect from the complainant. The vehicle was insured for the period from 04.02.2015 to 03.02.2016. The OP had insured the said vehicle after being satisfied the documents provided by the complainant and assured the complainant that the proper services would be provided to the complainant.
2. On 09.03.2015, the vehicle of the complainant met with severe accident in the area of Police Station of Anaj Mandi, Patiala in which the vehicle of the complainant was totally damaged and an FIR bearing No.8 dated 09.03.2015 was lodged by Police Station Anaj Mandi, Patiala. In order to fulfill the loss sustained by the complainant, he applied for the claim bearing No.0820021845 before the OP as the vehicle was covered under the insurance scheme. More than a period of 1 year have since been elapsed but the OP has not settled the claim of the complainant which it ought to have settled within a month after the accident took place. After being fed up with the attitude of the OP, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OP through his counsel on 22.12.2015 through registered post. In reply to the said legal notice, the OP vide their letter dated 16.01.2016 had sought various documents which were duly supplied to the OP vide letter dated 30.01.2016 which were duly received by the OP. Thereafter the OP vide their letter dated 10.02.2016 again sought the documents which were already supplied to them, vide letter dated 30.01.2016. This act on the part of the OP clearly proves that they are not inclined to settle the claim of the complainant. This act and conduct on the part of the OP tantamount to be an unfair trade practice as the OP have committed breach of trust towards the complainant. Due to this act and conduct on the part of the OP, the complainant has suffered a huge loss, harassment and mental agony and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP may kindly be directed to pay Rs.5,70,000/- as total sum assured of the vehicle which was totally lost and also be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared and filed written reply whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the OP. The present complaint is pre-mature and therefore liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further averred that the OP vide various letters and numerous telephonic reminders advised the complainant to submit required documents for processing of the claim, which includes letters dated 13.05.2015 and 08.07.2015, issued by Surveyor Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, letter dated 19.10.2015, reply to the legal notice dated 16.01.2016, reply to the letter dated 10.02.2016 by the OP. However, despite repeated requests and reminders, the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents for processing of the claim till date. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has not been settled due to delay caused by the complainant himself. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score and further alleged that the OP is still ready to process the claim of the complainant on submission of the required documents as per terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present case. The OP has acted strictly on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The present case has been filed by the complainant with the malafide intention and due to his own unwillingness to submit the documents with the answering OP and even the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands rather the complainant has intentionally concealed the true facts and even the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the insurance policy from the OP but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further categorically submitted in Para No.7 of the reply that vide letter dated 10.02.2016, the OP had duly informed the complainant that Mr. Prabhjot Singh, driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective license for driving the aforesaid vehicle. It was further informed to the complainant that Goods Carrier Permit, issued on 14.12.2015, submitted by the complainant was not valid as on the date of accident and RC of the vehicle was also dated 05.06.2015 i.e. post the date of accident. Copy of D/L of Mr. Prabhjot Singh, copy of permit and RC are attached with the reply and complainant was advised to provide the documents duly completed claim form, valid and effective driving license of Mr. Prabhjot Singh, copy of road tax, fitness & route permit valid as on date of accident and spot survey details but the complainant has miserably failed to submit these documents and as such the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and Ex.C22/A to Ex.C22/D and then closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Mark OP-2 to Mark OP9 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. After hearing the arguments and from scrutiny of the case file, it reveals that the ownership of the TaTa-407 Truck of the complainant is not denied by the OP and even the OP has also admitted that the insurance policy was purchased by the complainant was valid for the period 04.02.2015 to 03.02.2016 and accident of the said vehicle has been also proved by the complainant, by bringing on the file copy of DDR dated 09.03.2015 Ex.C4 and it is also admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was fully damaged and he submitted a claim. In order to settle the claim of the complainant, OP sent number of letters to the complainant for submission of some documents and these letters have been also produced on the file by the complainant himself which are Ex.C16 and Ex.C17, document Ex.C17 is very crucial and relevant document, whereby complainant was informed that there is a violation of term and condition of the policy and as per term and condition of the policy, goods carry vehicle must have route permit, valid driving license of the driver and RC but through letter Ex.C17 dated 10.02.2016, the complainant was very much informed that his letter dated 30.01.2016 alongwith some documents received but on scrutiny of the document, it was found that the driver of the said vehicle Mr. Prabhjot Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and copy of the driving license of Prabhjot Singh submitted alongwith other documents, is issued for MCWG and LMV Non Transport Class of vehicles. However, the class of vehicle insured with us and being driven by Mr. Prabhjot Singh is a Transport vehicle, the DL copy submitted to the company is not valid and effective for the class of the vehicle insured with them and further Goods Carriage Permit submitted alongwith documents has been issued on 14.12.2015 and is valid till 13.12.2020, but the date of accident is 09.03.2015 prior to the date of issue of the Goods Carriage permit and similarly the copy of RC submitted alongwith the document was issued on 05.06.2015 i.e. after the accident which occurred on 09.03.2015 and again asked for submitting the valid driving license, permit and RC but till date, the complainant has not submitted these documents. So, we find that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP rather if we go through the documents i.e. copy of permit which obviously issued after the date of accident and similarly RC was also issued, after the date of accident and driving license of the driver of the said vehicle Mr. Prabhjot Singh is also not having endorsement of Transport vehicle rather the same is only LMV means Non Transport Vehicle, copy of the driving license is available on the file Ex.C13. As the complainant has not submitted the valid driving license of the Driver Mr. Prabhjot Singh till today which shows that the complainant has not a valid driving license of the Driver Mr. Prabhjot Singh, if so then, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed because the endorsement of Transport vehicle is very much necessary when the vehicle is meant for carrying goods and in support of this observation, we like to make a reliance a pronouncement of the Hon'ble National Commission decided in Revision Petition No.579 of 2013 title “Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anothers Vs. Seema” and in the aforesaid judgment, it is categorically reported as under:-
“From the above discussion, it becomes abundantly clear that a person who is holding a license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), does require the requisite endorsement from the licensing authority to enable him to drive a transport vehicle, including a light commercial vehicle, in the absence of such endorsement, he cannot be stated to be in possession of a valid and effective driving license for driving a transport vehicle. In the present case, therefore, we do not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission and the District Forum that the holder of license for LMV did not require any authorization from the licensing authority for driving a commercial vehicle in question. Obviously, there has been a violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant by employing a driver, who did not have proper authorization to drive that vehicle and in this judgment they have also made a reliance a pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, cited in 2009(2) RCR(Civil) 419, title “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Angad Kol and others”.
8. So, if we see the case of the complainant in the light of above judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission then we find that the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and therefore the complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
25.07.2017 Member President
