DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 71 of 19.2.2016
Decided on: 13.9.2017
Malkiat Singh S/o Sh.Maghar Singh R/o village Ghanurki, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Sai Market, Patiala through its Senior Divisional Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Surinder Gupta,Advocate.counsel for complainant.
Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,Advocate,counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Malkiat Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay the insurance claim of Rs.16,170/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of theft till its realization;
- To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith Rs.15000/- as cost of litigation expenses and counsel fees
2. In brief , the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of scooter No.PB-11-BS-7468, which was got comprehensively insured with the OP for the period from 8.4.2015 to 7.4.2016 vide cover note No.507402.On 15.5.2015, the scooter of the complainant met with an accident and got damaged. The complainant intimated the OP who appointed a surveyor. He handed over all the documents as demanded by the surveyor. As per the advice of the OP he took the scooter for repair to the workshop of M/s Kalyan Motors , Nabha Road, Bhadson, the authorized dealer of Honda. He paid Rs.16,170/- vide bill No.252 dated 24.6.2015 to M/s Kalyan Motors , Nabha Road, Bhadson for the repair of the scooter. He also lodged the claim with the OP. However, the OP vide letter dated 18.8.2015 wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground that on the date of accident i.e. 15.5.2015, he was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive two wheeler, whereas he got the driving licence renewed from the Licencing Authority, Patiala w.e.f.14.7.2003 to 9.3.2028 to drive the two wheeler. He got issued a registered legal notice served upon the OP on 18.9.2015 but the OP did not bother to send reply to the same and failed to pay the claim amount. The act and conduct of the OP amounted to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that on receipt of intimation of loss, the OP deputed Er.Shamsher Singh Sohi, surveyor and loss Assessor , who vide his report dated 7.7.2015 assessed the loss with regard to the scooter bearing No.PB-11-BS-7468, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-( 11191- salvage 191). It is stated that the insured gave licence No.2017/DUP/C dated 14.7.2003 issued by LA Patiala to drive m/cycle and car valid upto 31.3.2015. Lateron he submitted another licence No.PB112000224301 (duplicate) in the form of smart card, showing validity w.e.f.14.7.2003 to 9.3.2028. The OP got both the driving licence verified from LA Patiala and as per verification report dated 3.8.2015,licence No. 2017/DUP/C is valid w.e.f. 14.7.2003 to 31.3.2015 and the licence was renewed by LA Patiala on 4.6.2015 valid upto 9.3.2028.It is stated that on the date of incidence the complainant was not having effective and valid driving licence and the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP . After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for the Op has tendered in evidence affidavit of Smt.Madhu K.Tikko, Deptt.Manager alongwith documents Exs.OP3 to OP10 and closed the evidence. Exs.OP1 and OP2 have been tendered in the statement recorded as OPW1, of Sh.Sampuran Singh, Jr.Asstt. Office of District Transport Office, Patiala.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that at the time of accident, the complainant was having a valid and effective driving licence, whereas the OP has wrongly repudiated his claim on the flimsy ground and prayed that the OP may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
On the contrary, the ld.counsel for the OP has submitted that after receipt of the claim intimation, a surveyor was duly appointed by it to whom the complainant has firstly submitted a licence No. 2017/DUP/C dated 14.7.2003 and lateron he had submitted another driving licence No.PB112000224301(DUP) with the insurance company in the form of smart card showing validity w.e.f. 14.7.2003 to 9.3.2028. The OP got verified both the driving licence from the Licencing Authority, Patiala and as per verification report dated 3.8.2015, the licence No. 2017/DUP/C dated 14.7.2003 was valid upto 31.3.2015 and the said licence was renewed by the Licencing Authority, Patiala on 4.6.2015 which was valid upto 9.3.2028, meaning thereby that at the time of accident i.e. 15.5.2015, the complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the scooter because his licence was expired on 31.3.2015 which was subsequently renewed on 4.6.2015. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
7. From the perusal of licence No. PB112000224301, which has been tendered by the complainant as Ex.C2, it is evident that the same was issued on 14.7.2003 in the name of the complainant, was valid for the period from 14.7.2003 to 14.7.2028. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP in order to prove this fact that driving licence of the complainant bearing No. PB112000224301 was valid for the period from 14.7.2003 to 31.3.2015 and not valid till 14.7.2028, has filed an application for summoning the witness from the office of D.T.O. Patiala, which was allowed by this Forum, vide its order dated 15.12.2016. Accordingly, Sh.Sampuran Singh, Jr.Asstt. of D.T.O. Patiala appeared before this Forum alongwith the summoned record. He was examined by the ld.counsel of the OP and cross-examined by the ld. counsel for the complainant. Said Sh.Sampuran Singh, Jr.Asstt., D.T.O. Patiala, has stated in his chief that as per office record, a driving licence, to drive a motor cycle/car was issued in the name of Malkiat Singh s/o Mager Singh on 14.7.2003, valid for the period from 14.7.2003 to 31.3.2015. Sh.Malkiat Singh s/o Mager Singh had applied for renewal of his driving licence, vide application received on 4.6.2015 and the above stated driving licence of Malkiat Singh s/o Mager Singh was renewed by the D.T.O. Patiala, for the period from 4.6.2015 to 9.3.2028. He further stated that as per office record Malkiat Singh s/o Mager Singh was not holding any driving licence on 15.5.2015 as his earlier D.L. was expired on 31.3.2015 and the same was renewed on 4.6.2015.In his cross examination, he has stated that the original driving licence was issued on 14.7.2003 and was valid up to 31.3.2015 and thereafter it was renewed for the period from 4.6.2015 to 9.3.2028. He has further stated that once the licence has been renewed, the gap period is automatically covered.
8. It may be stated that as per Section 15(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, “Any licencing authority may , on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its renewal:
Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.” From the statement of Sh. Sampuran Singh, it is abundantly clear that the licence No.2017/DUP/C which was issued on 14.7.2003, in the name of the complainant, expired on 31.3.2015. From the undated form No.9, Ex.OP2/6 , it is evident that the complainant applied for the renewal of the driving licence No.2017/DUP/C which was renewed by the L.A.Patiala for the period from 4.6.2015 to 9.3.2028, as is evident from the driving licence details,Ex.OP1. Admittedly, accident was occurred on 15.5.2015. From the documents referred above, it is abundantly clear that the licnece of the complainant was expired on 31.3.2015 and the same was renewed by the D.T.O. Patiala on 4.6.2015 which was valid up to 9.3.2028, meaning thereby that on 15.5.2015, i.e. the date of accident, the complainant was not holding valid and effective driving licence to ply the vehicle in question and the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and cannot be said be deficient in providing the service.
9. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and consequently, dismiss the same without any order as to cost. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:13.9. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
