Complainant Bakshish Singh has filed the present complaint U/s 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties and praying that the directions may kindly be issued to opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.1,25,260/- to the complainant which was paid by him to M/s Kosmo Automobiles, G.T. Road, Jalandhar alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till the realization of the said amount. Complainant has also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassments to him for not making the payment of the claim amount alongwith cost of proceedings and any other relief to which he is entitled under law and equity, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he got insured his vehicle i.e. I20 Asta Car bearing number PB-06AQ-1620 with the opposite parties vide policy number 14060031170300015487 which was valid from 16.01.2018 to 15.01.2019 and entire premium was paid by the complainant. It was pleaded that on 31.10.2018 on or about 6.30 P.M. an accident took place of the vehicle of the complainant and FIR No.148 dated 01.11.2018 was lodged by police station Maqsudan, police District Jalandhar Rural in this regard and matter was also reported to the opposite parties who appointed their surveyor. Complainant repaired his vehicle from M/s Kosmo Automobiles, G.T. Road, Jalandhar on the directions of the opposite parties by paying a sum of Rs.1,25,260/- and bill of the same was submitted by him to the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that complainant many times requested the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,25,260/- but they lingering the matter by one way or the other and a legal notice was also served by the complainant to the opposite parties on 25.3.2019 who gave its reply on 11.04.2019 on frivolous grounds. Complainant is having driving licence which is genuine and legal and renewed by him from time to time and this fact can be verified by calling the record of the concerned department. Complainant received a letter dated 12.03.2019 from the opposite parties vide which they repudiated his claim. It was also pleaded that complainant claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties for harassing him illegally which was the deficiency in service on their part. It was next pleaded that the cause of action has arose to the complainant and against the opposite parties on 31.10.2018 i.e. the date of accident, on 12.03.2019 i.e. the date of repudiation and finally on the refusal of the opposite parties, hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It was stated that on receiving the claim of the complainant regarding the vehicle in question for the loss in alleged accident, Insurance Company deputed Mr. M.L. Mehta & Co., Surveyor & Loss Assessor for assessment of the loss of the damaged vehicle who made the net assessment to the tune of Rs.1,13,083.19/- and submitted his report on 20.12.2018 with the opposite parties. It was further stated that the loss which assessed by the surveyor of the opposite parties complainant is not entitled as the driver of the said vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. It was also stated that as per the verification report dated 01.02.2019 which was conducted by Sh.Nirvair Singh, Investigator, Jalandhar, the driving licence No.3053/GSP/03, dated 06.06.2003 on the basis of which, the driving licence in question was renewed from time to time, was issued in the name of Makhan Singh son of Swaran Singh resident of VPO Dhala, Tehsil Batala and on the basis of the said licence, present driving licence was issued which was found fake and as such at the time of alleged accident, the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence which was the breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the claim of the complainant had rightly been repudiated by the opposite parties on 12.03.2019. On merits, it was admitted that claim was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party which was repudiated by them under the terms and conditions of the policy and reply of the legal notice was also given by the opposite parties on 11.04.2019 vide which they duly informed the complainant regarding the grounds of repudiation of his claim. All the averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
4. Counsel for the complaint to prove the case has filed affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C11.
5. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has filed affidavit of Charan Dass Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1,2/A with copies of documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/9.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by complainant but not filed by opposite parties.
8. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for the parties.
9. From the over all circumstances as enumerated in respective pleadings of the parties, It reveals that the complainant got insured his Car bearing number PB-06AQ-1620 with the opposite parties vide policy number 14060031170300015487 which was valid from 16.01.2018 to 15.01.2019 as Ex.C1. Thereafter the car of the complainant met with an accident on 31.10.2018 about 6.30 P.M. and a FIR No.148 dated 01.11.2018 was lodged at police station Maqsudan, police District Jalandhar Rural as Ex.C2 thereafter complainant gave intimation to the opposite parties who appointed a surveyor. Complainant repaired his vehicle from M/s Kosmo Automobiles, G.T. Road, Jalandhar by paying Rs.1,25,260/- and bill of the same was submitted to the opposite parties. Thereafter a legal notice was also served by the complainant to the opposite parties on 25.3.2019 as Ex.C6 and its reply dated 11.04.2019 as Ex.C9. Thereafter Complainant received a letter dated 12.03.2019 from the opposite parties vide which they repudiated his claim as Ex.C10.
10. On the other hand the entire stand of the insurance company is that as per the verification report dated 01.02.2019 as Ex.OP-1/2 which was conducted by Sh.Nirvair Singh, Investigator, Jalandhar, the driving licence No.3053/GSP/03, dated 06.06.2003 on the basis of which, the driving licence in question was renewed from time to time, was issued in the name of Makhan Singh son of Swaran Singh resident of VPO Dhala, Tehsil Batala and further on the basis of the said licence, present driving licence was found fake as the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence which was the breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the claim of the complainant had rightly been repudiated.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that it is denied that at the time of accident, the driver had not valid and effective driving licence. Rather, the driver namely Jaspal Singh S/o Ajit Singh had a valid driving licence issued and renewed by the RTA, Gurdaspur as Ex.C5 and its online verification as Ex.C11, which is valid on the date of accident.
12. After going through the file in hand we observed that the complainant submitted the Driving License of Jaspal Singh S/o Ajit Singh which is Ex.C5. Further as per Final Survey Report of Mr. M.L. Mehta & Co., Surveyor & Loss Assessor which is Ex. OP-1/5 as well as claim form filed by the complainant which is Ex.OP-1/6, the detail particulars of the Driving License are same. The detail of the said Driving License is as under :-
Name of D/L Holder : Mr.Jaspal Singh S/o Sh.Ajit Singh
D/L No. : PB-0620090037646,
Date of Issue : 26-10-2009
Valid Up to : 25-05-2021 for (Non Transport)
25-05-2019 for (Transport)
Valid for : (LMV) /LMV-GV/Transport Only
Issuing Authority : RTA, Gurdaspur.
But we are surprised to notice that the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant wrongly on the basis of only verification report of Driving License No.3053/GSP/03, which was never been submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties and ignored the actual driving license submitted by the complainant. Latest Law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.3276 of 2016 case titled as Thakur Daware Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd decided on 17.02.2023 the claim was allowed even in the case of driving license is found fake and insurance company cannot repudiate the own damage claim of insured but has to settled it on non standard basis. But here in the present case the driving license submitted by the complainant is valid. The Driving License in the case in hand is found in order as per online verification submitted by the complainant
13. From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record, it is made out that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are fully convinced with the arguments of counsel for complainant. He has succeeded in proving his case. The opposite parties have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.
14. Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case this commission is of considered opinion that present complaint is hereby partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,13,083/- as claim assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor alongwith interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 09.05.2019 till its realization within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which opposite parties shall pay the amount along with interest @ 9% P.A. In addition to this the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of harges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Kiranjit Kaur Arora)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 22, 2023 Member
*YP*
