DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.477 of 2017
Date of institution: 10.07.2017 Date of decision : 09.01.2019
Vinod Kumar son of Hans Raj resident of House No.203, Sada Shiv Enclave, Baltana, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office at Chopra Tower, IInd Floor, Above Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ambala Chandigarh Road, Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Head/Manager.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Munish Kumar, counsel for complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, owner of Tipper bearing registration No.PB-65-V-6057 got same insured with OP by paying premium for period from 21.03.2015 to 20.03.2016. When this tipper was driven by Raju son of Chunni Lal resident of Mubarakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali during validity period of insurance coverage, then same met with an accident on 22.02.2016 with bus bearing No.PB-12-H-2308 near Gurdwara Majhi Sahib, Bharatgarh because driver of bus going ahead of tipper applied brakes abruptly. Said Raju was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. That driving license was shown to complainant. Copy of the same alongwith identity proof of driver was submitted with OP for their record purpose. In the accident no loss to the passengers of any sort was caused. After record of DDR No.8 dated 22.02.2016 at PP Bharatgarh, District Rupnagar, matter regarding settlement/compromise was brought in the records of police station because it was found that there was no negligence of any of the parties in taking place of accident. On lodging of claim by complainant with OP, surveyor was appointed, who checked and verified the vehicle and even took photographs of the damaged vehicle. As vehicle was damaged, so advice was tendered to complainant to incur repair charges, which will be disbursed to him subsequently and accordingly complainant by spending a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs got the vehicle repaired. Surveyor deputed by OP investigated the matter and obtained signatures of driver of vehicle belonging to complainant by claiming that these signatures are obtained for preparation of statement and for purpose of disbursal of claim. Signatures were put by said driver in good faith. Complainant received letter dated 31.08.2016 from OP containing assertion that claim of complainant cannot be allowed, but same has been repudiated on the ground that driving license of Mr. Raju was not genuine at the time of accident. That repudiation of claim alleged to be illegal and void and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of incurred repair charges of Rs.2.00 lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2.50 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.
2. OP is exparte in this case.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
5. Copy of registration certificate of tipper in question produced as Ex.C-1 which shows complainant as owner of this tipper. Ex.C-2 insurance cover note is showing that this tipper was insured with validity period from 21.03.2015 to midnight of 20.03.2016. Accident of this tipper took place on 22.02.2016 is a fact established by copy of DDR No.8, which is produced on record as Ex.C-3. Damage to this tipper was caused on account of its striking against the bus, driver of which applied brakes abruptly for saving the motorcycle who had already fallen on the ground. So certainly submission advanced by counsel for complainant has force that damage to tipper in the course of accident caused during the period of insurance coverage.
6. Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-16 are bills produced to show incurring of expenses of Rs.2.00 lakhs and details thereof incorporated in Ex.C-17. In view of this it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that complainant is entitled for reimbursement of Rs.2.00 lakhs, the incurred expenses on repair, more so when accident took place at the time when the vehicle in question was fully insured with OP. Submission of counsel for complainant has force to the effect that damage to tipper in question caused in accident at the time when it was driven by Raju. However, entitlement of complainant for insurance claim will be there in case it is established that driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident because limitation of liability in the shape of driver’s clause endorsed on insurance coverage Ex.C-2 provides so.
7. Counsel for complainant contends that repudiation of claim took place vide letter dated 31.08.2016, which is produced on record as Ex.C-18. However, Ex.C-18 is not a letter for repudiation of claim having taken place. Rather after going through Ex.C-18 it is made out that as per verification report received from Guwahati regarding driving license of Mr. Raju it was found that this driving license is not genuine. After receipt of this report, complainant through notice Ex.C-18 was called upon to show cause as to why repudiation of claim be not ordered. Through Ex.C-18 one opportunity to complainant was granted for substantiating his claim with clarification that in case he does not respond within 7 days, then claim shall stand repudiated due to in genuineness of driving license of Raju. It is not the claim of complainant that he sent response to this notice Ex.C-18 and as such fault lays with complainant himself in not responding to notice Ex.C-18 sent by OP to complainant for affording due opportunity of hearing to complainant. In view of this fault on part of complainant in not sending reply or response to notice Ex.C-18, deficiency in service on part of OP is not there at all, particularly when it has obtained verification report regarding driving license of Mr. Raju.
8. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that as per his case put forth in the complaint and affidavit, driving license of Mr. Raju was handed over to OP at the time of obtaining of insurance policy. If that be the position, then this means that record of driving license of Raju was available with OP and that is why they were able to seek for report regarding in genuineness of driving license of Mr.
Raju from DTO Guwahati. If copy of said driving license was provided to OP, then complainant could have called for record of driving license from OP by filing an application, but same has not been done and nor complainant himself has produced on record any report to show that driving license of Mr. Raju was genuine at the time of accident. It is admitted by counsel for complainant in course of arguments that driving license of Raju was issued by Motor Vehicle Registration Authority of Guwahati and as such contents of letter Ex.C-18 are not incorrect that verification from the proper office obtained by OP for finding the driving license of driver as not genuine. In genuineness of driving license certainly is due ground for repudiation of claim as per terms and conditions of insurance coverage note Ex.C-2, as discussed above and as such OP neither adopted any unfair trade practice and nor they rendered any deficient services, more so when fault lay with complainant himself in not responding to notice Ex.C-18. So complaint deserves to be dismissed.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
January 09, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
