BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.69/13.
Date of instt.: 26.04.2013.
Date of Decision: 10.08.2015.
Akshay Deep Singh S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh R/o H.No.160, Sector-19, HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited Kaithal, through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. K.K.Khetarpal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. C.S.Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his vehicle TATA LPT-909 bearing registration No.HR-64-6107 with the Op vide policy No.35360431110100002713 valid w.e.f. 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012. It is alleged that unfortunately on 28.01.2012, the said insured vehicle of complainant met with an accident while going from Ladwa to Kurukshetra and the said insured vehicle got badly damaged in the said accident. It is further alleged that the driver of said vehicle in question at the relevant time namely Ramdhan S/o Mewa Singh was holding a valid licence No.61164 dt. 27.11.1986 originally issued by the Licensing Authority Hyderabad (AP). It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim of Rs.2,28,319+Rs.3,000/- as expenses for Crain loading with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 06.09.2012. The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that here is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. It needs to be submitted here that just after the receipt of intimation regarding the alleged accident of vehicle in question, the company with all promptness registered the claim and T.P.Singh & Co., an independent Surveyor and Loss-assessor was appointed for final survey, who after thorough survey submitted its report dt. 03.03.2012. From the perusal of said report, it was revealed that the said surveyor assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs.1,85,579/-. It needs to be submitted here that from the perusal of DL, it has been revealed that the alleged original DL No.61164/LA/Hyderabad was shown to be issued from Hyderabad. Accordingly, Mr. K.Ramachanderrao, an independent investigator from Hyderabad was deputed to verify the said DL from LA Hyderabad, who after due verification vide his report bearing No.NIA/RO/File No.201/2012/13 dt. 12.04.2013 reported that he visited Hyderabad Zone, Secunderabad Zone and Ranga Reddy Zone of RTA offices on 26.03.2012, 02.04.2012 and 11.04.2012 and above-said driving licence was not issued in Hyderabad, Secunderabad Zone and Ranga Reddy Zones and it has further been reported that during the course of investigation, it is found that the above-said driving licence is fake. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and CW2/A and documents Ex.CA to CG and closed evidence on 16.04.2014. On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to R6 and closed evidence on 13.01.2015.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant Akshay Deep Singh is the registered owner of vehicle TATA LPT-909 bearing registration No.HR-64-6107 and the said vehicle was insured with the Op vide policy No.35360431110100002713 valid w.e.f. 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012. It is also admitted case of the parties that on 28.01.2012 the vehicle in question met with an accident and at the time of accident, Ramdhan son of Mewa Singh was the driver on the said vehicle. The claim of complainant has been repudiated by the Op on the ground that in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle No.HR-64-6107 was found fake by the Investigator. The photo-stat copy of the licence of the driver Ramdhan is Ex.CA. From the perusal of Ex.CG, a letter dt. 29.08.2012 of the Op, it is clear that the DL No.61164 of the driver Sh. Ramdhan was renewed by Licensing Authority, Secy., R.T.A.Kaithal and the same was valid upto 09.07.2014. The Op had written a letter dt. 06.09.2012 Ex.CC/Ex.R4 to the complainant and in this letter, it is mentioned by the Op that the licence of Ramdhan originally was issued from Licensing Authority, Hyderabad and there were 4 RTAs in Hyderabad. The Op has placed a letter Ex.R6 on the file which was written by K.Ramchander Rao, Insurance Investigator to the Deputy Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Secundrabad. According to Ex.R6, the Investigator declared the DL No.61164 as fake only on the basis of verification from 3 RTAs offices. The Investigator is silent about the 4th RTA of Hyderabad. Besides this report of Investigator, the Op had not placed any report/record from any of the offices of the RTA of the Hyderabad regarding the fact that the DL in question is fake. The OP has produced an authority cited in 2008 ACJ page 1498 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Bhat and others of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the said case, during the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the insurance company prayed for examination of the concerned clerk of the Motor Vehicles Department. The said prayer was allowed. The concerned clerk of the Licensing Authority, Alwar, was summoned. The said summons were served in the office of Transport Authority. The Transport Authority, however, did not depute any officer to produce the documents called for. On the other hand, the complainant produced case law cited in III(2011) CPJ page 413 (NC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Ohri, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that The only evidence submitted is an affidavit of the Divisional Manager of the Petitioner/Insurance Company which states that verifications made from the District Transport Office, Gurdaspur had indicated that the licence as purported had not been issued by that office to Sucha Singh. No affidavit or letter from the District Transport Office, Gurdaspur has been produced by the petitioner to further support the contentions made in the affidavit of the Divisional Manager. Coming to the case in hand besides the affidavit of D.M. of Op, the Op has placed on file the report of Investigator which is not complete. The law cited by the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of present case. So, the contention of Op is repelled. The complainant has claimed Rs.2,28,319/-+Rs.3,000/- upon the repair of the damaged vehicle, whereas the Op has appointed T.P.Singh & Co. as surveyor, who submitted his detailed report, Ex.R2 and he assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs.1,85,579/-. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938.
6. Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Op to pay Rs.1,85,579/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.08.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
