Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/581/2017

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ferry Sofat

05 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/581/2017
Date of Institution	:	18/08/2017
Date of Decision	:	05/08/2019

 

 

Harjinder Singh s/o Shri Ranjodh Singh residence of Village Dusrana, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office (Claim Hub), SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager.

2.     The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office 2^nd Floor, Jeevan Parkash Building, Near UTI, Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.     Royal Associates, Investigating and Detective Agency, Head Office : SCF No.132, First Floor, Sector-13 Market, Urban Estate Kurukshetra (Haryana) 136118.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gurjot Singh Mangat, Vice Counsel for Sh. Ferry Sofat, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
	:	OP-3 ex-parte.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Per allegations as set out in the consumer complaint are, in the year 2015 complainant had purchased a Toyota Innova vehicle and got it registered under registration No.CH-01BB-3258 and insured with OPs 1 & 2. The insurance was lastly renewed w.e.f 25.2.2016 to 24.2.2017.  Complainant’s case is, on 23.4.2016 vehicle met with an accident and he suffered major injuries on his body and was hospitalized in a hospital at Mohali.  Police had acknowledged the crime vide FIR No.71 dated 5.5.2010 wherein it was stated, they were going to Gurdwara Dafera, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib from Village Dusrana.  Vehicle was being driven by Baljinder Singh and the complainant was occupant.  There was reflection of light of other vehicle around 2.20 a.m. in the night as a result of which Baljinder Singh lost control over the vehicle and hit the trees.  The driver suffered minor injuries while grievous injuries were suffered by the complainant. In the process licensed 32 bore revolver was stolen from the site.  Vehicle was totally damaged, claim was submitted and the statements of complainant and others were recorded. However, claim was repudiated on the ground, vehicle was being driven by complainant himself and not Sh. Baljinder Singh.  Despite having afforded many chances, complainant had failed to produce the driving licence and as per terms and conditions of the policy, claim was repudiated.  The said facts were wrong, vehicle was driven by Sh. Baljinder Singh who had the driving licence and as such complainant prayed for award of the claim of the amount of Rs.13,41,900/- with interest @ 18% per annum; Rs.2,00,000/ towards physical and mental harassment alongwith Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.
2.         OPs 1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint and furnished their joint reply. Their case is, matter was got surveyed from the surveyor who had assessed the loss on net salvage basis for an amount of Rs.10,91,900/- less policy excess clause Rs.2,000/- and the investigation was handed over to OP-3/ investigator. During the course of investigation, complainant himself had made a statement that he was driving the vehicle, therefore, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle was driven in violation of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the complainant had no driving licence.  As such, per terms of the insurance policy, repudiation of the claim was justified. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-3 did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 10.10.2017 it was proceeded against ex-parte. 
4.         Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, there was 12 days delay in lodging the claim with the OPs.  May be, the complainant was under treatment as he had suffered major injuries, therefore, this may not be fatal to disallow the claim. However, as per pleadings, it was the own statement of the complainant before OP-3/investigator that vehicle was being driven by him and not by Sh. Baljinder Singh. The statement of complainant followed by statement of the driver, Sh. Baljinder Singh and Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, another person. It was the case, at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven by Sh.Harjinder Singh, complainant himself.  It is on the basis of this record, investigator i.e. OP-3 had recorded the conclusion in his report (Annexure C-3) and in the last page of the report, opinion mentioned is reproduced below :-

“On the basis of above said findings and documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that date, time and place of accident seems to be genuine. Cause of accident was also found correct as I.V. went out of control and struck with a tree. But name of driver claimed by insured in claim documents seems to be not genuine.  In fact car was driven by insured himself.  Harjinder Singh himself confessed in his statement that he was driving I.V. at the time of accident.  He had nowhere mentioned that driver was with him.  Even shown driver was not produced for statement.  This is breach of policy condition. Insurer may deal with claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said findings. This report is issued without prejudice.”

 

It is also not the case, complainant had the driving licence on the date of accident as various chances were afforded to him to produce it, but, he failed to get it produced.  The complainant has referred in the consumer compliant that he was asked to make such like statement by OP-3 which was away from truth and, thus, it cannot be used against him to repudiate his claim.  However, there are no circumstances to believe this version for the reasons, complainant retired as an Honorary Captain from the Indian Army and is an educated man and there was no likelihood of OP-3 deceiving him in such like manner by recording wrong statement.

8.         Perusal of the record further shows, statement of Sh. Baljinder Singh, alleged driver was also recorded by the investigator OP-3 on 22.6.2016.  It is Annexure R-7 at page 48 vide which it was also claimed, vehicle was being driven by the complainant, Sh. Harjinder Singh, which had met with an accident on 23.4.2016 at about 1:30 a.m. Not only this, the statement of Sh. Sarabjeet Singh was also recorded on 21.6.2016 (Annexure R-7A at page 49) by OP-3 which also shows, said vehicle used to be driven by the complainant himself, Sh. Harjinder Singh and not the driver, Sh. Baljinder Singh. These were the statements including that of the complainant himself so made the basis for the repudiation of the claim by holding, vehicle was being driven by Sh. Harjinder Singh, complainant himself who did not possess the driving licence to drive the vehicle as it was not produced despite repeated intimations sent to him. Now the best course available with the complainant was to obtain affidavit of Sh. Baljinder Singh that his statement was also incorrectly recorded by the Investigator/ OP-3 and, as a matter of fact, he was driving the vehicle when it had met with an accident.  The record of OP-3 could only have been discarded if their affidavits were obtained and produced on record but no such affidavits of these two persons Sh. Baljinder Singh and Sh. Sarabjeet Singh were obtained to this effect that the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Baljinder Singh and not Sh. Harjinder Singh, complainant.  In the absence of rebutting affidavits on their part, statements recorded by the investigator/OP-3 are liable to be believed.  There was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant as the vehicle was not being driven by the authorised driver on the date of accident and reference has been made to case titled as National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Abdul Kalam, I (2016) CPJ 468 (NC) vide which it was held where the claim is repudiated due to lack of valid driving licence of driver at the time of accident, repudiation of claim was justified. Reference was made to another precedent of Hon’ble National Commission titled Hem Raj vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, III (2016) CPJ 54 (NC), wherein it was held that the insurance policy was issued with a condition that vehicle shall be driven by a person who is having valid driving licence.
9.         Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we do not find there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
05/08/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President