Haryana

Karnal

CC/835/2019

Anand Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Natioanl Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Karan

06 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 835 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.19.12.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:06.01.2023

 

Anand Jindal son of Shri Ravinder Ward no.1, Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO 332-334, Sector 34 A, 3^rd floor, Chandigarh.

 

2.     The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri P.K. Kamboj, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri S.K.Patlan, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant in order to earn his livelihood had purchased a power crane bearing registration no.HR-75-B-5095 and got insured the same with the OPs, vide policy no.426013311810001269, valid from 29.08.2018 to 27.08.2019 for an insured value of Rs.11.00 lakh. Unfortunately, on 03.01.2019 at about 8.00 a.m., the said vehicle met with an accident when it was parked nearby the road, within the revenue estate of village Phoosgarh, tehsil Indri and District Karnal and it was a foggy day due to which visibility was very low. At that moment, a truck  bearing registration no.PB-11AT-8672 came from Indri side and all of sudden a stray cow came in front of the said truck and the truck driver had made extraneous efforts to save the said stray cow and in the process of saving said cow, the said truck hit into back side of the crane. The crane of the complainant sustained extensive damages. The matter was reported to the police and the police made a Rapat in this regard. Since the accident had occurred by chance, therefore, no criminal case has been registered and only DD has been reported by the police. After the said incident, complainant immediately informed the OP and on receipt of intimation, OP appointed a surveyor, who enquired the matter and prepared estimate of the loss of the damaged vehicle who advised the complainant to get repaired the said vehicle. On assurance of the surveyor, the complainant get the said vehicle repaired and spent a sum of Rs.1,39,525/- on its repair and transportation and submitted all the documents with the insurance company. As per the desires of the OPs, the complainant had already submitted all the relevant documents. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the OPs have repudiated/cancelled the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 25.06.2019 on the ground that the insurance company have got the driving licence of driver Mr. Balbeer verified from the Licensing Authority MON Nagaland and as per verification report, the driving licence is not found in their software and all such Manual Driving Licences and thus held that the driving licence is fake. The said repudiation is totally illegal and arbitrarily and not binding on the rights of the complainant. Moreover, the accident caused by the driver of offending vehicle and the driver of ill-fated vehicle had no role to play in causing the accident. It is further averred that at the time of engaging the said driver, the complainant had perused his driving licence which was seems to be genuine and complainant had also got conducted his driving test before engaging him as a driver. The driving licence of the driver further renewed from Licensing Authority Punjab where the entire record is available of said driving license. Complainant approached the OPs several times and requested for seeking compensation but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 06.09.2019  to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the OPs never asked the complainant to get his vehicle repaired. It is further pleaded that complainant lodged his claim with the OPs and OPs then got verified about the validity and legality of the driving licence of the driver of complainant and on enquiry, it was found that the driving licence of the driver of the complainant was not found in the software of concerned office and hence same stands cancelled. On the basis of said report, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations mentioned in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of DDR Ex.C3, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 17.03.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence copy of details of licence Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 13.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured the vehicle in question from the OP. On 03.01.2019 the said vehicle met with an accident and badly damaged. Complainant got repaired the same and spent Rs.1,39,000/- on its repair. Complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and completed all the formalities but OPs did not pay the claim and repudiate the same on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case laws titled as Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jagtar Singh and others in FAO-3755-2017 (O&M) and XOBJC-212-CII-2017, decided on 01.06.2022; Ranjit Kaur and others Versus Jarnail Singh and others in FAO-6759-2010 decided on 03.08.2022 and  Reliance General Insurnace Co. Ltd. Versus Rajpati and others in FAO no.2744 of 2016 date of decision 05.07.2019.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the driver of the complainant was not holding a legal and valid driving licnece at the time of incident and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

11.          The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that as per report of Licensing Authority MON (Nagaland), the driving licence of driver has not been found in their software and all such Manual Driving License stands “cancelled”. 

12.           The onus to prove its version lies upon the OPs but OPs has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.  The insurance company had not examined a witness of the concerned authority either by summoning him through process of the court or by getting a Commission appointed for the purpose. There was no opportunity with the insured to cross examine the witness in the light of relevant record maintained in the office of concerned licensing authority. Furthermore, the accident caused by the driver of offending vehicle when it was parked nearby the road, the driver of the vehicle in question had no role to play in causing the accident. Hence, the observation of the investigator of the OP with regard to the driving licence of driver Balbeer is totally arbitrary, unjustified, biased and ultimately based on presumptions and assumptions. Furthermore, as per settled law, mere fact that the driving licence is fake, will not axiomatically lead to the conclusion that insurer is absolved of its liability. Once owner satisfied himself with the competence of the driver and the driver is in possession of licence, he is not required to verify the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. Once owner discharges initial onus and asserts that he satisfied himself that the driver was in possession of a valid licence and was a competent driver, the burden shifts on the insurer. Insurer in order to absolve is liability, is required to prove that the owner of the vehicle engaged services of the driver willfully despite know that his driving licence is fake. Hence, the act of the OPs while repudiating the claim of the complainant  on the said ground amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           Now question arises for consideration is that how much loss occurred in the said accident.

13.           As per the version of the complainant, his vehicle met with an accident on 03.01.2019 and badly damaged. Intimation with regard to said accident was given to the OPs, who appointed a surveyor and loss assessor and on the advice of the surveyor complainant got repaired his vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.1,39,525/-.

14.           The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has placed on file, only copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of DDR Ex.C3, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7.  Neither complainant nor OP has placed on record, report with regard to loss of the vehicle. There is nothing on file to prove that complainant has spent Rs.1,39,525/-on the repair of his damaged vehicle. No receipts/tax invoice for spending the alleged amount has been placed on file. Furthermore, there is no estimate/ survey report on file, to ascertain the loss of the vehicle in question.

15.           Thus, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:06.01.2023

 

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member

 

Sushma

Stenographer