Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 709.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 15.12.2017.

                                                                    Decided on      : 29.08.2019.

M/s Rohtak Shilong Roadways hissar Road near M.G.Motors, Rohtak through its authoriozed signatory Madan Kumar.

                                                                      ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional office 313 Model Town, Delhi Road Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Ms. Savita Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant got his vehicle no.HR-46D-5079 insured from the opposite party vide policy No.35380031160100012059 for the period from 04.03.2017 to 3.3.2018. That the said vehicle met with an accident on 7.5.2017 and was badly damaged. The complainant informed the opposite party and submitted his claim. But the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that driving license was fake. In fact, the driving licence of the driver was valid and genuine.  That complainant requested the opposite party to make the payment of claim amount but to no effect. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.500000/- as damages of the vehicle  alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.   

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that after getting the information from the insured regarding the accident his vehicle, opposite party deputed a surveyor to assess the loss. That the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.239739/- but the same is not payable as the complainant/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as the driving licence no.UP81/2012/0005447 of Montu Singh s/o Prempal was fake and as per RTO report, the alleged driving licence has been issued in the name of Ravi Shanker s/o Sh. Shri Prakash. Hence on the date of accident, the driver Montu Singh was not holding a valid driving licence rather the same was fake. So, complainant is not entitled to any claim from the answering respondent, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and closed his evidence on 26.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and has closed his evidence on dated 13.05.2019.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the D.L. of the driver was found fake. To prove the same, opposite party has placed on record copy of investigation  report alongwith R.T.O. report. As per RTO report of LA. Aligarh, U.P. Ex.R7, the D.L.NoUP81/2012/0005447 is in the name of Ravi Shanker s/o Sh. Shri Prakash. Hence the DL produced by the Montu Singh Ex.R5 is found fake. On the other hand, except the legal notice, complainant has not placed on record any document to prove that how much loss was caused to the complainant. Any bill of repair of vehicle or any estimate has not been placed on record. The legal notice placed on record is Ex.C1, which is without any acknowledgement/delivery report of the same. Moreover, the date of legal notice is 15.12.2017 and the date of filing of present complaint is also 15.12.2017.Complainant has also not placed any document to prove that the D.L produced by the complainant is genuine.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

29.08.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.