Haryana

Ambala

CC/93/2017

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. Chawla

08 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 93 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 27.03.2017.

                                                          Date of decision   : 08.05.2018.

 

Jarnail Singh (Aged :- ….years) son of Sh.Rawel Singh, resident of House No.1119/17, Ward No.7, Mahinder Nagar, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Bal Bhawan Road, Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City, Haryana through its Branch Manager.

 

….…. Opposite party.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER 

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Satpal Chawla, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Mohinder Bindal, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle Car ETIOS bearing registration No.HR01/AL-5354 duly insured with OP vide policy No.TUI/ 11169417 having validity from 08.03.2015 to 07.03.2016. The aforesaid vehicle was being driven by driver Vikram who was appointed by the complainant after seeing the valid driving licence valid from 09.12.2010. On 26.11.2015, when the vehicle was being driven by Vikram a truck bearing registration No.PB-10/ BS-3195 hit the vehicle and caused huge damages. The vehicle was financed from Toyota Globe Finance Company and the complainant is making the installments thereof regularly but due to demonetization the complainant could not deposit the installment and the car is also lying with the company. The complainant intimated the insurance company and deposited all the relevant documents with it and thereafter the vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor of company. The workshop of Toyota Company prepared a bill of Rs.4,10,000/- or ore but the insurance company has refused to pay the amount of insurance claim on the ground that the driving licence of driver Vikram was not valid at the time of effective on the date of loss despite the fact that the complainant himself has confirmed through RTI from Nagaland that the licence of driver Vikram was valid and was issued on 05.03.2016 which was previously renewed on 09.12.2000. The driving licence of the driver Vikram was valid and effective but the insurance company has wrongly and illegally denied the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OP is deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit annexure CW1 and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

2.                On notice OP appeared and contested the claim by filing joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, concealment of material facts have been taken. The complainant is liable to be prosecuted firstly for holding two driving licences from two difference licensing authorities and secondly for holding fake license. On receiving the accidental claim, the insurance company had appointed surveyor who had visited the workshop of M/s Toyota Globe where the said vehicle was parked for repair. After detailed discussion and evaluating all the facts the surveyor had submitted detailed survey report dated 02.01.2016. The driving licence No.DL/KRL/31457/09-10 was found fake during investigation by the investigator and when the said driving licence was found fake then the complainant produced another driving licence issued from Tuensang, Nagaland against the provisions of law. The OP was supposed to ignore the second driving licence out-righty being it is an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act to have two driving licenses but to satisfy him about the fraudulent practice of people about Nagaland driving license with the support of notification dated 01.08.2014 whereby all such driving licenses were ordered to be cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.2014 if not on smart card. The alleged driving license issued from Nagaland was also found to be ineffective on the date of accident. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the claim has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavits and documents Annexure RA, Annexure RB, Annexure RC and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

4.                           Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the driving licence of the driver was valid and effective at the time of accident but the OP wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant despite the fact that the complainant had appointed the driver after being satisfied that he was having valid driving license. It has been further argued that absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of driver are not defences available to the insurer against the insured. In the present case the driver Vikram was not at fault in causing accident, therefore, the insurance company cannot reject the ground that he was not having valid driving license. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance of case laws titled as  Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company 2013 (4) RCR Civil (SC), Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) (SC) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) SC.

                              Per contra it has been argued that the driver Vikram was having two driving licence No.DL/KRL/31457/09-10 was found fake during investigation by the investigator and when the said driving licence was found fake then the complainant produced another driving licence issued from Tuensang, Nagaland against the provisions of law. The OP was supposed to ignore the second driving licence out-righty being it is an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act to have two driving licenses but to satisfy him about the fraudulent practice of people about Nagaland driving license with the support of notification dated 01.08.2014 whereby all such driving licenses were ordered to be cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.2014 if not on smart card. The alleged driving license issued from Nagaland was also found to be ineffective on the date of accident.  In support of his arguments learned counsel for the OP has relied upon the case laws titled as National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Gopal Phatak IV (2011) CPJ 58 (Hr.State Commission), Ajit Prasad Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. 2015 (2) CLT 56 (NC), National Insurance Company Ltd. and others Vs. Hardeep Singh 2017 (4) CLT 90 (Hr. State Commission) and M/s Vijay Concerns Vs. State Bank of India & Others 2013 (4) CLT 590 (NC).

6.                          It is not disputed that the vehicle in question is insured with Op which met with an accident during the subsistence of the policy in question. It is established on the case file that the driver Vikram was having two driving licences. The OP has placed on file verification report Annexure R6  of DL No. DL/KRL/31457/09-19, Karnal wherein it is clearly mentioned that the above said driving license has been issued in the name of Mohit son of Rajesh and not in the name of Vikram who was driver of the vehicle in question which clearly indicate that the said driving license was fake and fabricated.  The other driving license issued from Nagaland Authority was not genuine and effective at the time of accident, whereas as per circular dated 01.08.2014 of office of Transport Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland stated that “Driving License is issued on Smart Card through the National Software “SARATHI” from 30.10.2009 in the state other than the license issued on booklet. Thus any license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on booklet after 30.10.2009 is not genuine. Therefore, the subject DL do not falls under genuine category.  Public Information  letter No.TC-23/MV/2007 (PT-1) issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland on 01.08.2014 says that it was mandatory requirement that driving licensing must be on smart card through the National Software-SARASTHI from 30.10.2009 and any license purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on Booklet from after 30.10.2009 is not genuine. This license Annexure C3 in question has been issued on 09.12.2010 after the date mentioned in the circular issued by Transport Commissioner, Nagaland. Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Ajit Prasad Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. 2015 (2) CLT 56 (NC)  has held that  the driver did possess two driving licenses which by itself was an offence being prohibited under the law.

                             Hon’ble State Commission in case titled as National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Gopal Phatak IV (2011) CPJ 58 (Hr.State Commission)  has held that  Fake Driving license- Breach of policy conditions- Claim repudiated- Forum allowed complaint- Hence appeal- Contention, driver of vehicle having fake driving license- Accepted- Complainant violated terms of insurance policy as driver of vehicle was hold two driving licenses out of which first driving license was found fake- Person cannot hold two driving licenses simultaneously- Complainant is not entitled to any compensation with respect to damage of his vehicle which was being driven by an unauthorized person- Order of Forum set aside.

7.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances as well as the case laws Ajit Prasad Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Ors. & National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Gopal Phatak (supra) we have concluded that the Op has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the driver Vikram was having two driving licenses and both the driving licenses were also not valid and effective. The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the case in hand are being distinguished. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint deserves dismissal. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 08.05.2018                                                                                                                         

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N.ARORA)

          Member                        Member                        President