PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly put, the Complainant was the owner of Chevrolet Spark, bearing Regn.CH-04-B-0513, duly insured with the OP – Insurance Company, upto 3.11.2010. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident, on 20.05.2010, while it was being driven by her husband – Mr. Abhinav Anand. A DDR No.8 dated 20.5.2010 to the said effect was registered in Police Station, Phase-8, Mohali. Information was also given to the OP No.1. A surveyor was appointed and the damaged vehicle was given for repair to OP No.2.

                   It was averred that the Complainant gave all relevant documents to the OP No.1, along with driving licence of the driver – Mr.Abhinav Anand. It was also informed that the driver was also having another driving licence, which was not traceable on account of shifting of house, and the same would be provided, to OP No.1, as and when traced out.

                   It was alleged that the OP No.2 repaired the vehicle and raised a bill of Rs.2,10,811/- on 31.07.2010, whereas the estimate was Rs.1,00,000/-. That OP No.1 did not pay the repair amount to the Complainant, due to which, the vehicle is still lying with OP No.2. It was further alleged that despite submitting all the documents and repair bills to OP No.1, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 16.8.2010, on the ground that the driver was not holding genuine & effective/ valid driving licence at the time of accident.

                   It was further averred that after tracing out the misplaced driving licence of driver, the complainant submitted the same to OP No.1. However, the OP No.1 illegally rejected the request of the complainant to reconsider the earlier decision dated 16.8.2010, vide which her claim was repudiated. Hence, this complaint. 

2.                     Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.                     The OP No.1 in its reply pleaded that on receipt of information of loss to the vehicle on 26.5.2010, the surveyor to assess the loss and to collect all the relevant documents for verification & assessment of the loss caused to the vehicle was appointed. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,52,975/- vide his survey report dated 2.8.2010, after deducting salvage of Rs.3500/-. It was asserted that the Complainant submitted the driving licence of Mr. Abhinav Anand, issued by the Registering & Licensing Authority, Lucknow. On verification, the said driving licence was found to be fake. Accordingly, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 16.8.2010. After the repudiation, another driving licence of said Mr. Abhinav Anand was produced by the Complainant, which was obtained from RTO, Mokokochung, Nagaland. Since the said driving licence was allegedly obtained against the rules mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claim of the Complainant was not re-opened, which fact was duly communicated vide letter dated 27.04.2011. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     The OP No.2 in its reply pleaded that the Complainant, while handing over the vehicle, on 20.05.2010, had instructed the replying OP to repair the vehicle with the assurance that even if the claim is rejected by the Insurance Company, she would make the payment on her own and take the delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was repaired to the full satisfaction of the Complainant. While asserting that the Complainant was liable to pay the billed amount of Rs.2,10,811/- along with applicable parking charges, all other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7.                The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the other facts are admitted. The claim has been repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the driver at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was contended that the vehicle bearing registration No.CH-04-B-0513 was duly insured with OP No.1, which met with an accident on 20.05.2010, while it was being driven by one Mr. Abhinav Anand. The case was also registered in Police Station, Phase-8, Mohali and information was given to the insurance company, who in turn, appointed the surveyor to assess the damage to the vehicle.

8.                The learned Counsel for the complainant further argued that the driver of the vehicle in question was having two driving licences. One driving licence was not traceable on account of shifting the house. When the information along with relevant documents including driving licence of Sh.Abhinav Anand was supplied to OP No.1, the insurance company also intimated that the second licence will be provided for verification, when traced out. The OP No.1 had illegally repudiated the claim vide repudiation letter dated 16.8.2010 as after tracing out the misplaced driving licence of the driver, the same was submitted to OP No.1.  However, OP No.1 illegally rejected the request of the complainant to reconsider the earlier decision vide repudiation letter dated 16.8.2010.

9.                It was lastly argued that OP No.2 had repaired the vehicle and raised a bill of Rs. 2,10,811/- on 31.7.2010, whereas, the estimate was of Rs.1,00,000/-. The OP No.1 did not pay the repair amount to the repairer – OP No.2, due to which, the vehicle is till lying with OP No.2.

10.              The learned Counsel for OP No.1 contended that on receipt of information of loss to the vehicle on 26.5.2010, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,52,975/- vide his survey report dated 2.8.2010, after deducting salvage of Rs.3500/-. It was argued that the complainant submitted the driving licence of Mr. Abhinav Anand, issued by the Registering & Licensing Authority, Lucknow. On verification, the said driving licence was found to be fake. Thus, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 16.8.2010. It was further argued that after the repudiation, another driving licence of said Mr. Abhinav Anand was produced by the complainant, which was obtained from RTO, Mokokochung, Nagaland. It was lastly argued that since the said driving licence was allegedly obtained against the provisions and rules of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, so the claim was not re-opened.

11.              The learned Counsel for OP No.2 raised the arguments that while handing over the vehicle on 20.05.2010, the complainant had instructed OP No.2 to repair the vehicle with the assurance that even if the claim is rejected by the Insurance Company, she will make the payment on her own and take the delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was repaired to the full satisfaction of the complainant. It was lastly argued that the complainant has neither pleaded any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against it.

12.              The repudiation letter is dated 16.8.2010, wherein, it is recorded that the driving licence No.A-14936/LKO/08 dated 13.12.2008, with the expiry dated 12.12.2028 of Mr.Abhinav Anand, who was driving the car at the time of accident was sent to L.A.Lucknow for verification and confirmation of genuineness of the licence. As per report, the said driving licence has not been issued. Since the driver was not holding a genuine and effective/valid driving licence at the time of accident, so the terms and conditions of the policy had been violated and the company is absolved from the liability. The claim has been repudiated and filed as ‘No Claim’.

13.              The complainant has addressed a communication dated 20.9.2010 – Annexure P-8 to the insurance company – OP No.1 with the request to keep the file open. Annexure P-9 is another letter sent by the complainant to the insurance company dated 3.2.2011, wherein, it has been stated  that  he

had produced the driving licence of Mr. Abhinav Anand bearing No. A-14936/LKO/08, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, which on verification, was found to be fake. That there is another licence of Mr.Abhinav Anand, which the complainant was not able to locate earlier as it was misplaced. That the driving licence of said Mr.Abhinav Anand has been located, which is being enclosed with the request to get it verified. The reply to the said letter was sent by OP No.1 qua Annexure P-13 dated 27.4.2011, whereby, the complainant was informed that his request was placed before the competent authority, who in turn, has advised that earlier decision to repudiate the liability should be maintained.

14.              Now, it is established from the contents of Annexure P-13, referred to above, that the request of the complainant to get the other licence of Mr.Abhinav Anand verified was turned down by the authorities of OP No.1. Therefore, it appears that OP No.1 had repudiated the claim without taking the trouble to get the other driving licence of Mr.Abhinav Anand verified from the Licencing Authority as requested by the complainant through Annexure P-9.    

15.              Now, the point for consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim by OP No.1 is genuine. The answer to this is in the negative.

16.              The careful scrutiny of the letter dated 27.4.2011 – Annexure P-13 makes it clear that OP No.1 had not entertained the request of the complainant to verify the second licence and the decision taken by them to repudiate the claim vide Annexure P-7 was maintained. The complainant has produced on record the copy of the driving licence bearing No. 84879/Mkg/Prof/09 : Nagaland – Annexure P-10, which is valid to drive LMV, MMV and HMV only.

17.              Now, it is established on record that Mr.Abhinav Anand, the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was holding two driving licences (one bearing No.A-14936/LKO/08 – Annexure P-11 and another bearing No. 84879/Mkg/Prof/09– Annexure P-10). The first driving licence was found to be fake and with regard to the other driving licence, copy of which is Annexure P-10, the OP No.1 – Insurance Company has not sought the verification report. Therefore, it is held that OP No.1 had failed to prove that the driving licence No. 84879/Mkg/Prof/09 of Mr.Abhinav Anand – copy of which is Annexure P-10 produced by the complainant was a fake driving licence as burden to prove that the licence is not valid & genuine lies on the insurer – OP No.1. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence is unjust. Reliance placed on 2003(2) CPC 622 titled as Harman Milk Foods Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh).

18.              Now, coming to the point of compensation, it will be relevant to make a reference to the surveyor report of Er.G.S.Riar – Annexure R-5, qua which, at page No.34 the net amount payable has been assessed as Rs.1,55,675.78 and expected salvage value is Rs.3500/-. The complainant has produced on record the invoice – Annexure P-4 amounting to Rs.2,10,811/-. He has failed to produce on record the receipt or the affidavit of the competent person to prove the payment of the amount of Rs.2,10,811/- to OP No.2. Therefore, the surveyor report of Er.G.S.Riar – Annexure R-5 is accepted and the OP No.1 is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,55,675.78 as assessed by the surveyor, subject to return of salvage.

19.              Admittedly, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer that OP No.1 be directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,10,811/- to be paid to OP No.2. There is no allegation with regard to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2. More so, the OP No.2 had filed the reply, stating therein, that repair of the vehicle was conducted, as per instruction of the complainant and, thereafter, the vehicle was repaired to her full satisfaction. In view of this, it is held that the complaint against OP No.2 is not maintainable, as the OP No.2 is neither deficient in service nor guilty of unfair trade practice.

20.              As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 1,55,675/- to the complainant, subject to return of salvage, as assessed by the surveyor – Annexure R-5. It is made clear that in case it is not possible for the complainant to return the salvage, then OP No.1 shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,52,175/- (Rs.1,55,675/- - Rs.3500/-) along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 16.8.2010 till its payment. OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.  This order be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP No.1 shall be liable to pay the awarded amount along with penal interest @ 15% p.a. besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

21.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.