Punjab

Sangrur

CC/328/2016

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri S.S.Ratol

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  328

                                                Instituted on:    16.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       05.10.2016

 

Jagtar Singh son of Joginder Singh, R/O Benra Gate, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, College Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate.

For Opposite party   :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jagtar Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his car bearing registration number PB-64-A-0018 from the OP vide policy bearing number 36130031140100002392 for the period from 24.1.2015 to 23.1.2016 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.5817/-. Further case of the complainant is that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 06.10.2015 near village Kup Kalan and damaged badly. It is further averred that the intimation of the accident was given to the OP and as per the instructions of the surveyor of the OP, the vehicle was shifted to Saini Motor Garage, Sangrur for repairs, where he spent an amount of Rs.28,420/- on the parts and Rs.24000/- was paid on account of repairs charges as such, the total amount of Rs.52,240/- was spent on the repairs of the car.  Thereafter the complainant submitted all the documents including bills to the OP, but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.2.2016  on the ground that the driving license of the complainant was not valid for non transport category.  Thus, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP and has prayed that the OP be directed to release the claim amount of Rs.52,240/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is admitted that the car in question was insured with the OP subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further admitted that after receiving the intimation of accident dated 6.10.2015, the OP appointed Er. Pushpinder Kumar Garg, surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,892/- after deducting depreciation and policy clause and value of salvage etc.  Further it is stated that the insured submitted the driving license issued by DTO Sangrur on 7.2.2017 for LMV-GV/MCVG/Transport/Tractor which was valid upto 14.4.2015 for non transport and the same was renewed on 18.12.2.015 to 17.12.2020 for non transport, whereas the accident took place on 6.10.2015, as such, at the time of accident the complainant was not having any valid driving license.  It is further stated that as regards the license issued by California State, the same is not valid in India, as such, the claim is said to has been rightly repudiated.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of letter dated 25.2.2016, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-4 copy of bill, Ex.C-5 copy of DL of the complainant (California), Ex.C-6 copy of DL of complainant (Indian), Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 copies of the bills and Ex.C-10 copy of passport and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP1 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-2 terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3copy of letter, Ex.OP-4 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-8 copies of DL and report of DTO thereof, Ex.OP-9 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured his car in question from the OP by paying the requisite premium  for the period from 24.1.2015 to 23.1.2016, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy, which on record is Ex.C-3. It is further not in dispute that the car in question met with an accident on 06.10.2015 and damaged badly during the subsistence of the insurance policy in question, when the same was being driven by the complainant himself near village Kup Kalan, when one tractor/trolly going ahead suddenly applied brakes and front of the car hit the rear of trolley and one Van following the car hit the rear of the car. It is further an admitted fact that the complainant gave the intimation of loss of the vehicle to the OP, who appointed surveyor and investigator to assess the loss. It is an admitted fact that the surveyor assessed the loss of the car in question to the tune of Rs.25,892/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP has repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid driving license and as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 25.02.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2.  Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim and that the complainant was having a valid driving license at the time of accident or not.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact of the parties that the complainant was having a driving license to drive the car in question, which expired on 14.4.2015 and thereafter the same was got renewed on 18.12.2015 which was thereafter valid upto 17.12.2020, but the fact remains that at the time of accident on 6.10.2015, the complainant was not having a valid Indian driving license.  However, the complainant has also produced a copy of the driving license for Class ‘C’ issued by the California , a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5, which is valid upto 15.4.2020. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the accident has not caused due to the negligence of the complainant nor the complainant is at all responsible for the accident of the car in question which took place on 06.10.2015.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the copy of survey report of Shri Pushpinder Kumar Garg, which is on record as Ex.OP-4, wherein under the head “Cause of accident & its relevance to damages: it is stated that as per the verbal statement of representative of insured and claim form submitted by him, one Tractor/Trolly going ahead suddenly applies Brakes and front of car hit the rear of trolly. One van following the car hit the rear of the car. Hence, the loss.”  It seems that the accident has not caused due to the negligence of the complainant/driver at all.  We find support for this view from the citation of our Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Dr. J.P. Jain 2006(1) CPC 288, where the claim was challenged on the ground that the person driving the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that only the fakeness of license is not sufficient for repudiation of claim, but it also should be proved that breach of condition had contributed to the accident. There was nothing wrong in the driving skill of the driver who got his license renewed after date of accident and the order of the Forum was upheld and the appeal  of the insurance company was dismissed.  In the present case, there is nothing in the complaint or established by the OP that the accident occurred due to any negligence of the complainant/driver.  Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swarn Singh and others 2008(1) CPC 203 (Supreme Court) has held that mere absence of driving license or having a fake or invalid license does not create any defence in favour of the insurer. Burden lies upon insurer to prove by positive evidence that there is breach of condition of policy by insured.  Mere absence of driving license unless it constitutes a main or contributory cause of accident does not create any defence in favour of the insurer.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Gaj Pal Singh Rawat 2009(3) CPC 368 (NC) wherein it has been held that if the accident had no nexus with the license of the driver, the claim should be allowed on non standard basis.

 

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has also cited New India Assurance Co. Ltd versus Amrit K. Nehra, I(2009) CPJ 39 (NC), wherein it has been held that there is no provision exists in Motor Vehicles Act for recognizing driving license issued abroad as valid in India.   Further the same view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dilpreet Singh and others versus The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. CLXXVII (2015) 578 (Punjab and Haryana High Court).  But, we feel that these rulings are not at all helpful to the case of the OP, as we feel that the ruling United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Gaj Pal Singh Rawat (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the case.

 

9.             Now, coming to the point of quantum of compensation payable to the complainant. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.52,240/-, but on the other hand, the approved surveyor of the OP has assessed the loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,892/- as is evident from the copy of survey report on record as Ex.OP-4.  As such, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to settle the claim of the complainant on non standard basis (75%) as per the report of the surveyor, Ex.OP-4, who had assessed the loss at Rs.25,892/-, which comes to Rs.19,419/-.

 

10.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 (Civil) 111.

 

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.19,419/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.3.2016 till realisation in full. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own  costs. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 5, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member