A.K.Mehta President

1        Sh. Manjinderpal Singh filed the present complaint under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against National Insurance Company through its authorized officer, regional Office: S.C.O. 332-334 Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 etc. (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service with further prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant due to damage of insured vehicle and be also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is resident of Mohalla Nanaksar, Tarn Taran and is owner of Alto K-10 Car bearing registration No. PB-46L-2230 and got insured the same with Opposite Parties-Insurance Company for Rs. 2,50,000/- and period of insurance was from 4.3.2013 to 3.3.2014; that on 20.11.2013, Satinderjit Singh alias Soni alongwith his brothers Raminderjit Singh alias Jyoti and Balwinder Singh alias Rinku was going to Amritsar Railway Station for dropping Raminderjit Singh and Balwinder Singh at Railway Station as they were to board train for going to Delhi and at about 4:15 A.M. when he reached near Petrol Pump Bala Chack, a truck came from opposite side which was being driven by its driver carelessly, rashly and negligently and truck while going on the wrong side of the road collided with the car in question and due to collision Raminderjit Singh and Balwinder Singh received serious injuries and died at the spot while driver Satinderjit Singh received multiple injuries and F.I.R. No. 314 dated 20.11.2013 was registered under Section 304-A/279/337/427 of  IPC at Police Station City Tarn Taran and the car in question was badly damaged and it was a case of total loss; that the complainant intimated the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company about the accident and also later on filed claim with Opposite Parties-Insurance Company and on the demand of Opposite Parties-Insurance Company, the complainant submitted all requisite documents, photographs etc. but inspite of repeated requests and visits of complainant, Opposite Parties-Insurance Company lingered on the matter and then repudiated the claim of the complainant wrongly vide letter dated 26.2.2014; that Opposite Parties-Insurance Company did not agree with the complainant inspite of repeated requests and due to this reason complainant filed complaint in hand for payment of insured value of the car, compensation for harassment and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complainant has violated the basic terms and conditions of the policy and the complaint is not maintainable because Satinderjit Singh driver of the car was not holding effective and valid driving license at the time of alleged accident as the driving license produced by the complainant in the name of Satinderjit Singh was found to be fake one from its verification by Licensing Authority Patti (Tarn Taran); that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has tried to conceal the material facts and as such, complainant has manipulated  the facts to get a false claim and is not entitled for the relief; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint as driver was not holding effective and valid driving license at the time of accident and Opposite Parties-Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.2.2014; that as per Surveyor Report dated 21.1.2014 of V.K. Mehta Surveyor Pvt. Ltd. the driving license of Satinderjit Singh was found to be fake on its verification from Licensing Authority and as such, claim is not maintainable; that intimation regarding alleged accident was also given with delay of 12 days; that the claim is not maintainable in view of terms and conditions of the policy in question and contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith but the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and as such is not entitled to relief under the complaint; that the claim of the complainant already stands repudiated and as such, no consumer dispute survives. On merits, the issuance of insurance policy of the car in question by the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company was admitted. It was also admitted that claim was filed by complainant but it was asserted that the claim stands repudiated vide letter dated 26.2.2014 on the ground that driving license of the driver Satinderjit Singh was fake and was not valid and as such, claim is not maintainable. The complaint is also contested on the same pleas as taken in the Preliminary Objections and other allegations of the complaint were also denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4          Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in to evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith affidavit of Satinderjeet Singh alias Soni Ex. C-2 alongwith documents Ex. C-3 to C- 14 and closed the evidence and thereafter Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties tendered in to evidence affidavit of Suresh Sharma Ex. OPs. 1,2, 3/1 alognwith documents Ex. OPs 1, 2, 3/2 to Ex. O.Ps. 1, 2, 3/9 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and also gone through the evidence and documents produced by the parties.

6        Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued the case on the same allegations as were taken in the complaint. It was contended that the complainant is owner of the car in question and he got insured the car in question from Opposite Parties-Insurance Company vide insurance policy Ex. C-6 for Rs. 2,50,000/- which was insured/declared value and period of insurance was 4.3.2013 to 3.3.2014. He contended that Satinderjit Singh was driver of the car in question on 20.11.2013 and accident took place with a truck in which two occupant of the car died due to injuries received in the accident and Satinderjit Singh also received multiple injuries and car in question was totally damaged as is clear from the photographs Ex. C-11 to C-14. He contended that Satinderjit Singh was having license Ex. C-8 which was got verified from Transport Authority Khadoor Sahib and as per verification report, the license was valid and effective on the date of accident. He contended that FIR Ex. C-10 was also registered regarding the accident against the truck driver on 20.11.2013 i.e. on the same day when the accident took place and complainant filed claim with the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company but the claim was wrongly and illegally repudiated vide letter Ex. C-5 dated 26.2.2014 on the ground that Satinderjit Singh was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. He contended that as per verification report Ex. C-7, driving license of Satinderjit Singh was valid and effective. He contended that even the legal heirs of deceased Raminderjit Singh and Balwinder Singh also filed claim cases under MACT and Ld. MACT Amritsar vide its awards Ex. C-3 and Ex-4 allowed the claim petitions, though defence of Opposite Parties-Insurance Company in the claim case was also that driving license of Satinderjit Singh was not valid and effective on the date of accident and it clearly shows that the repudiation of claim by the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company was wrong and illegal and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and Opposite Parties-Insurance Company is required to be directed to pay the insurance amount of the car in question alongwith compensation and litigation expenses mentioned in the complaint. He supported his arguments with case titled Abilash Jewellery Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2003(1) Consumer Law Today Page 348 and case titled Mohammad Ejaj Vs United India Insurance 2014(4) Consumer Law Today 161.

7        Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company contended that complainant intimated the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company regarding accident with delay and as such Opposite Parties-Insurance Company could not investigate the matter properly. He also contended that Surveyor and Assessor was appointed in this case and as per report of Surveyor Ex. OPs 1 to 3/7, the driving license of driver Satinderjit Singh Ex. OPs. 1 to 3/9 given by complainant to Opposite Parties-Insurance Company was found fake and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex. OPs 1 to 3/2, it was one of the condition of the insurance policy that the person driving the car must hold an effective and valid driving license at the time of accident and in this eventuality, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and was not entitled to claim and the claim was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company and as such, complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

8        It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is owner of the car in question and got insured the same from Opposite Parties-Insurance Company for period 4.3.2013 to 3.3.2014.It is admitted case of the parties that car in question was involved in accident on 20.11.2013 and was completely damaged. It is also admitted case of the parties that complainant filed claim for taking insurance cover of the car in question and the claim was repudiated by the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company. The repudiation letter is proved on the file as Ex. C-5 and it shows that claim was repudiated only on the ground that driver of the car in question namely Satinderjit Singh was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The Opposite Parties-Insurance Company also proved the copy of driving license Ex. OPs 1 to 3/9 i.e. driving license No. 19455 dated 8.6.2011 which was valid up to 20.3.2024 and it was issued by Licensing Authority M.V. Patti (Tarn Taran). The Opposite Parties-Insurance Company argued the case also on the ground that intimation regarding the accident was given late with a delay of 12 days. However, this plea was not a ground for repudiation of claim. In case titled Abilash Jewellery Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), the insurance claim was repudiated only on the ground that apprentice ( in whose custody gold was lost) was not covered under the policy he being not an employee but in view of the definition of term employee as given in Kerala shops and Commercial Establishments Act and clause ii of the policy, apprentice could be covered under the policy but during pendency of the claim petition, insurance company also took up the plea of violation of clause (x) of the policy which was not a ground for repudiation of claim and the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed that District Forum should not have allowed the insurance company to take up plea of violation of clause (x)  of the policy which was not a ground for repudiation and complainant was held entitled to the value of the gold with interest.. In the case in hand also, claim of the complainant was not repudiated by Opposite Parties-Insurance Company on the ground of delay in intimating the accident rather the claim was repudiated only on the ground that driver of the car in question was not holding effective and valid driving license and as such now opposite parties cannot be allowed to raise plea that intimation regarding accident was given with delay.

9        The claim of the complainant was repudiated only on the ground that driver of the car in question namely Satinderjit Singh was not holding effective and valid driving license at the time of accident. Opposite parties produced copy of driving license Ex. OPs 1 to 3/9 which bears No. 19455 dated 8.6.2011 and is valid up to 20.3.2024. This driving license was issued by Licensing Authority (M) Patti (Tarn Taran) and surveyor Mr. V.K. Mehta vide report Ex. OPs 1, 2, 3/7  reported the same to be fake and report of Licensing Authority (M) Patti (Tarn Taran) Ex. OPs. 1 2, 3/4 shows that license No. 19455 dated 8.6.2011 in the name of Satinderjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh was not issued by the office. Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company contended that in view of the report Ex. O.Ps 1 to 3/4, the driving license of Satinderjit Singh alleged driver of car in question was fake as same has not been issued by the said office in the name of Satinderjit Singh. However the complainant has also proved driving license of Satinderjit Singh as Ex. C-8 which bears No. 9161 dated 30.4.1998 and is valid up to 20.3.2024. This license was issued by Licensing Authority (M) Khadoor Sahib, Amritsar (now in Tarn Taran District). The complainant also got verified this driving license from registration authority Motor Vehicle Khadoor Sahib and as per report of registration authority Ex.C-7, license No. 9161 in the name of Satinderjit Singh was valid and effective till 20.3.2024. As such, both the parties have proved their respective driving license. The license proved by the complainant is declared valid and effective on the date of accident whereas the driving license produced by the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company proved to be fake. Otherwise, the L.Rs. of deceased Balwinder Singh filed claim petition in M.A.C.T. and Ld. M.A.C.T. Amritsar (vide its order dated 1.12.2014 Ex. C-3) framed issue No. 4 as to whether Satinderjit Singh alias Soni driver of the car No. PB-46L-2230 was not holding any legal and valid driving license at the time of accident and its onus was placed on Opposite Parties- Insurance Company which was also party in the claim petition. Ld. MACT Amritsar held this issue against Opposite Parties- Insurance Company. Both these licenses as discussed above were proved in the claim petition and Ld. MACT declared that driving license produced by Satinderjit Singh driver was valid and effective at the time of accident. Even, L.Rs. of Raminderjit Singh alias Jyoti also filed claim petition under MACT in which the same issue was framed as discussed above and vide order dated 1.12.2014 Ex. C-4 this issue was decided against Opposite Parties- Insurance Company. No evidence has been brought on the file by Opposite Parties- Insurance Company that the decision on this issue have been challenged in the superior court or is under challenge. As such, this decision has become final. Otherwise also driving license No. 9161 proved by complainant was prepared earlier i.e. 30.4.1998 whereas driving license No. 19455 produced by Opposite Parties- Insurance Company was prepared on 8.6.2011 i.e. much later. Moreover it is the case of Opposite Parties- Insurance Company that the driving license No. 19455 was produced by the complainant Manjinder Singh. It may be possible that Manjinder Singh was not aware about the correct driving license of Satinderjit Singh who is actually holder of driving license. Otherwise also as per the case of complainant, Satinderjit Singh also received multiple injuries in the accident and would be under treatment and that is why driving license was allegedly produced by complainant Manjinder Singh before Opposite Parties- Insurance Company immediately after the accident whereas correct driving license must be produced later on by Satinderjit Singh driver of the car in question which was found to be valid and effective on the date of accident. As such, considering the rival evidence of the parties and orders of the Ld. M.A.C.T, Amritsar it can be safely held that Satinderjit Singh was holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and as such the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and complainant is entitled to insurance claim for the car in question. The surveyor assessed the loss of the car in question as Rs. 2,49,000/- i.e. I.D.V. given in the insurance policy as the car was total loss as per surveyor minus excess clause of Rs. 1,000/- . As such, the complainant is entitled for recovery of Rs. 2,49,000/-  under insurance claim from the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company. As the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally withheld the insurance claim from the complainant, therefore complainant is also entitled to interest on the claim amount and the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company must have caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant, therefore the complainant is also entitled to compensation on this ground.

10      In the light of above discussion the complaint of the complainant succeeds and same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of complainant and against the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company and complainant is held entitled to recover Rs. 2,49,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs forty nine thousand only) from Opposite Parties- Insurance Company and is further held entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties- Insurance Company is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.