Haryana

Ambala

CC/462/2016

Navrattan Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shaurya Bhatia

25 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 462 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 27.12.2016.

                                                          Date of decision   : 25.05.2018.

 

Navrattan Anand r/o H.No.46, Raja Park, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co.Limited Branch Office 353501 5406, 2^nd Floor, Cross Road No.3, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.

...…. Opposite party.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER 

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Shaurya Bhatia, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Mohinder Bindal, counsel for OP.                                                                 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle Bolero Camper bearing registration No.HR37-D-7349 duly insured with OP vide policy No.35350131150100009957  having validity from 23.01.2016 to 22.01.2017. On 03.04.2016 when the car was being driven at moderate speed of 40-50 KM on the way to Hisar from Ambala Cantt. then all of  sudden a bus came from opposite side and negligent manner over take the Bollero and in order to avoid the collusion the Bollero was turn to kacha portion of the road, therefore, the vehicle hit a tree and got badly damaged.  The complainant had lodged the claim with the insurance company on 03.04.2016 by submitting all the relevant documents to the company. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,30,424/- but the claim was wrongly and illegally repudiated by ignoring the fact that the original license No.PB-1120080030371  was issued as renewed by licensing authority Patiala vide entry endorsement No.PB-11-20080030371. Driver Harmandeep Singh s/o Pritpal is an experienced driver to drive the vehicle class such as LMV, CAB, MCWG, TRANS and since 2008 he was holding a valid and effective driving licence having validity upto 14.06.2018 for transport and upto 14.06.2032 for non-transport. The complainant requested the Op to pay the claim amount and also got served legal notice upon it but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CX, Annexure CY and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.                On notice OP appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and suppression of material facts etc. have been taken. It is the complainant, who is responsible for the non-payment of the present claim because as a matter of fact the present reported claim entertained immediately and the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,30,424/- subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Sh.Harmandeep Singh who was driving the insured vehicle in question at the time of accident was renewed by the licensing authority, Patiala vide renewal No.PB-11-20080030371  and was allegedly shown to be originally issued by licensing authority, Mathura vide No.6250/MTR/2008. Sh.Sunder Singh, Advocate, Mathura was deputed to get the alleged driving licensing No.6250/MTR/2008  verified from concerned authority and on verification the renewal of said DL was found in order whereas on personal verification of record the driving license was found to be fake one duly confirmed by the concerned authority. The complainant was duly informed about the fate of his claim vide letter dated 25.10.2016 but in order to put undue pressure he had filed the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Other pleas have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB, Annexure RC and documents R1 to Annexure R8.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

4.                 Admittedly, complainant has purchased the policy in question from the OP for the period from 23.01.2016 to 22.01.2017 and during the subsistence of the period the vehicle met with an accident and got badly damaged on 03.04.2016 within the area of P.S. Ambala. The complainant has lodged the claim with the OP regarding loss of the vehicle which was registered at complaint No.35350131160190000045 and also supplied all the documents. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,30,424/- after verification of the accident as alleged by complainant as per Annexure R4 but the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that DL of the driver Harman Deep Singh was not genuine one  renewed by licensing authority Patiala vide No.PB-11-20080030371   originally alleged to be issued by Licensing Authority, Mathura vide No.6250/M/2008 has been reported and proved fake by the concerned licensing authority, Mathura (UP) vide its report dated 03.10.2016. Hence, the said driver was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and loss and he was driving the said vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act also. The complainant has summoned the record from RTA office, Patiala  and Rajesh Sharma, Clerk, RTA Office has recorded his statement that the driving license PB-11-20080030371 of Harmandeep Singh s/o Prit Pal Singh has been issued and renewed by the RTA, Patiala and it was also renewed twice on 14.06.2012 to 14.06.2015 and 14.06.2015 to 14.06.2018 for transport vehicle and the driving license was valid for non-transport vehicle from 15.06.2012 to 14.06.2032 having No.6250/M/08 and placed the copy of the extract of the driving license Annexure C8. It is very much clear that initially the driving license No.PB-11-20080030371 and they have also shown the previous DL No.6250/M/08 which was issued on 26.11.2008 by RTO, Patiala (PB11). The learned counsel for the OP has not cross-examined this witness on this point which shows that the driving license of the driver was valid and effective during the time of alleged loss/ accident i.e. 03.04.2016.  The OP has placed on record copy of verification report Annexure R7 in which it has been mentioned that the licensing authority has not issued the basic DL. Counsel for the OP has also placed on record the Basic License Dl No.6250/M/2008, Mathura Annexure R8 but the same is not supported with any evidence to show that the same is fake and forged one. Though the counsel for the Op has tried to prove on the case file that the said license was fake as per report Annexure R6 but in this very document the driving license number has been shown as 6250/MTR/08 whereas the present driving licensing is having no.6250/M/08. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the OP has placed on record verification report dated 23.05.2018 issued by Regional Transport Authority, Patiala verified that the license No. PB-11-20080030371 has been renewed by our department on 14.02.2012 in the name of Harmandeep Singh s/o Prit Pal Singh. They have clarified that Old No.6250/M/08 as per their computer record may be issued by Manipur/ Mathura and they have further clarified that the DL No.6250/8 is in the name of Balbir Singh s/o Rajinder Singh. It is also mentioned in the report that the DL number has been started with PB-11. As per the report discussed above the DL No.6250/8 was issued in the name of Balbir Singh s/o Rajinder but it appears that it is not related to the DL issued to the driver namely Harmandeep Singh being having different DL Number i.e. 6250/M/08, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the insurance company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim.  

5.                 Therefore, we are view the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was authorized to drive the vehicle. Accordingly, present complaint deserves acceptance and surveyor has also assessed the amount of Rs.2,30,424/-. It is a settled law that the surveyor is a best person and his report cannot be brushed aside brushed aside unless there is cogent and convincing evidence. In the instant case also, no credible evidence has been produced on the basis of which Surveyor’s report could be dis-believed. Hence, we allowed the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- to be paid by Op. The OP is further directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.230424/- (as assessed by the surveyor in his report Annexure R4) to the complainant alongwith with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization.

 

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 25.05.2018                                                                                                                         

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N.ARORA)

          Member                        Member                        President