BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.252 of 2019
Date of Instt. 05.07.2019
Date of Decision: 02.12.2021
Paramjit Kaur w/o Avtar Singh aged 54 years r/o Village Passi Bet, Safdarpur, Dasuya, Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. The Future General India Insurance Company Limited, through its National Head/ M. D., Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Indiabuylls Finance Centre, Tower 3, 6th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Prabhadevi (W), Mumbai-400013.
2. The Future General India Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized signatory/Manager, SCO-5 & 6, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar.
3. The Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Head, having one of its showroom at Guru Gobind Singh Enclave, Opp. LOC Depot, Amritsar Road, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Sunil Mehta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. A. K. Walia, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant wherein she has alleged that she has purchased one car/vehicle bearing registration No.PB07 BN 1361 with make Renault Kwid 1.0 bearing engine No.E106650 and Chassis No.MEEBBA004J1564061 from OP No.3. The said car was got insured from OPs No.1 & 2 bearing policy No.NF 177337 dated 20.04.2018 w.e.f. 20.04.2018 to 19.04.2019. That unfortunately on 03.01.2019, the said car met with an accident with one Truck bearing No.PB07 AS 9872 of Mohinder Singh s/o Balwant Singh r/o Village Kiyara, PS Behram, Distt. Gurdaspur at Langarpur Chowk, Dasuya, Hoshiarpur. Thereafter a compromise was effected between the parties of an amount of Rs.27,000/- as compensation to the damages caused to the car. At that time the driver of the car was Baljinder Singh. The said accident occurred during the existence and subsistence of the policy in the operation. As such the car was handed over to the OP No.3 for accident repair work in their workshop on 07.01.2019 and after inspection by the OP No.3, the total amount of repair approximately comes to Rs.1,70,624/- and Rs.1,70,624/- has been incurred on the total repair work of the car. The complainant requested the OPs No.1 & 2 for claiming the amount for the repair work but till date the OPs are delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and as such, the complainant suffered from mental torture, agony and harassment and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,70,624/- as incidental charges and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation also.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is change of driver of insured car by the complainant to get the claim. The OPs received the Claim Intimation at its Call Center on 04.01.2019 from driver of Car Gurwinder Singh who admitted at the time of claim intimation that he himself was driving the insured vehicle. The change of driver is evident from the fact that as per compromise dated 04.01.2019 between Mahinder Singh driver of Truck bearing No.PB-07-AS-9872 and Gurwinder Singh driver car bearing No.PB07BN1361 wherein it is clearly mentioned that it was Gurwinder Singh S/o Avtar Singh who was driver of the car, but in the claim form, the complainant filled the name of the driver of car at the time of accident to be Baljinder Singh. It is further averred that there is concealment of material facts and misrepresentation by change of driver from Gurwinder Singh to Baljinder Singh as Gurwinder Singh the actual driver at the time of accident was not holding any valid and effective driving license to drive insured car and that being so there is breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 23.04.2019 after due application of mind as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the complainant was informed accordingly. It is further averred that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, as repudiating the claim as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy does not amount to any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The claim of the complainant stands repudiated vide letter dated 23.04.2019 after due application of mind as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the complainant was informed accordingly. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the car by the complainant from OP No.3 is admitted and it is also admitted that the car was got insured from Ops No.1 & 2, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint against answering OP is false and frivolous as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that the answering OP has suffered a lot as the complainant has not paid the amount of Rs.1,70,624/- the cost of amount incurred on the accidental repair of the Vehicle No.PB07BN1361, to the answering OP No.3 and as the complainant is not taking the delivery of the vehicle despite several reminders, after the repair of the said vehicle as such, the answering OP No.3 is also entitled to the amount @ 150/- per day since 27.02.2019 till the delivery/removal of the vehicle from the premises of the answering OP No.3 by the complainant. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the car by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant has sought the amount of Rs.1,70,624/- of accidental repair work got incurred by her along with compensation for mental torture and litigation expenses. The complainant has alleged that the accident took place on 03.01.2019 and her car was damaged. She has also alleged that the compromise was entered between the driver of the truck and the car for Rs.27,000/-. The total amount after inspection by the OP No.3 was estimated of Rs.1,70,624/-. She has claimed that by not refunding the amount, the OPs have made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. She has produced on record the RC Ex.C-1 which shows that she is the owner of the car bearing No.PB-07-BN 1361. The insurance policy No.NF177337 dated 20.04.2018 w.e.f. 20.04.2018 to 19.04.2019 has been proved as Ex.C-2 and the existence of insurance policy has been admitted by the OPs. As per Ex.C-5, it is proved that the car of the complainant was repaired for Rs.1,70,624/-. The contention of the OPs is that the driver was not having any driving license at the time of the accident and the compromise alleged by the complainant is not compromise in the eyes of law and it has been alleged that the complaint does not fulfill the requirements of the insurance policy, therefore no compensation can be granted.
8. As discussed above, there is no dispute about the ownership and the accident, which took place on 03.01.2019. The dispute is with regard to the driving licence of the driver at the time of accident. Perusal of Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, which are the compromises, show that these were executed on 04.01.2019. Ex.C-3 shows that the compromise was executed between Mahinder Singh, the driver of Truck bearing No.PB07AS9872 with Gurwinder Singh, the driver of the car and it was agreed by the Truck driver Mahinder Singh that he would pay Rs.27,000/- to the driver of the car Gurwinder Singh. Later on, on the same day another compromise was executed between Mahinder Singh, the car driver and Baljinder Singh S/o Satpal on same terms and conditions.
9. The contention of the complainant is that she forgot the name of the driver, thereafter the compromise was corrected after mentioning the name of the driver, correctly, who actually drove the car. This writing is given by the complainant vide Ex.OP1&2/G. The repudiation letter Ex.OP1&2/I shows that the OP No.3 observed that Gurwinder Singh had intimated the claim at their call centre and mentioned that he himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, whereas he was not having effective and valid driving license at the time of loss, but was having learner’s licence only, which was applied much after the date of loss. The learning license of Gurwinder Singh Ex.OP1&2/D shows that it was valid for 02.03.2019 to 01.09.2019, whereas the accident took place on 03.01.2019. Even the compromises relied upon by the complainant shows that in Ex.C-3 Baljinder Singh is the witness in the compromise and it is bearing the signatures of Gurwinder Singh. Perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that it finds the signatures of Baljinder Singh on two places i.e. as the driver as well as at the place of the signatures of witness. If we see the signatures from naked eyes, then it is clear that the signatures of Baljinder Singh in Ex.C-3 as a witness and signatures of Baljinder Singh in Ex.C-4 as a witness of the document, whereas the signatures alleged by the complainant as a driver in the first line, where the signatures are appended, are different signatures. He cannot be witness and the party at the same time on the same document. More so, the complainant has not explained as to how the wrong name of the driver has been mentioned by her. Whereas as per the survey and investigation of the OPs, the vehicle was being driven by Gurwinder Singh. The complainant has not produced on record any document to show that Baljinder Singh was having any valid and legal driving licence at the time of loss. The OPs No.1 & 2 wrote a letter to Paramjit Kaur, the complainant on 16.03.2019 to clarify as to why their claim may not be denied as in the claim form, the name of the driver has been written as Baljinder Singh, whereas as per compromise the name has been mentioned as Gurwinder Singh. In reply to that application, the complainant gave clarification Ex.OP1&2/G, but she has not clarified as to why the wrong name was given by her. Vide Ex.OP1&2/I, the OPs have mentioned that the complainant has violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well as the terms and conditions of the policy. They have not provided the information to the OPs fairly. Thus, in these circumstances the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj
02.12.2021 Member Member President
