Haryana

Kurukshetra

223/2017

Shamsher - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

Jasbir Singh

05 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.223 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.10.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 05.04.2021.

 

Shamsher Singh son of Shri Shankar Dass, r/o village Bint, Post Office Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Railway road, opposite Gol Bank, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager. 

….Opposite party.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Jasbir Singh Pahuja, Advocate for complainant.   

                Ms. Purnima Malhotra, Advocate for opposite party.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Shamsher Singh against United India Insurance Company Ltd., the opposite party.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that complainant is registered owner of Canter bearing registration No.HR-65-7363 and the said vehicle was got insured by complainant from op at Kurukshetra vide policy No.1107023115 P106193743, which was valid from 30.8.2015 to 29.8.2016 and the complainant paid due premium for the above said insurance. It is further averred that Ramandeep was employed as driver on the above said vehicle by complainant after taking the driving test. The driving licence of Ramandeep was also seen and which was found valid and effective for driving the above said vehicle. It is further averred that on 23.7.2016, the said vehicle was being driven by Ramandeep on normal speed and on left hand side of the road while observing with all traffic rules and he was also holding a valid and effective driving licence. The canter was hit by some unknown vehicle and the same was badly damaged. There was no fault on the part of driver of the canter. It is further averred that complainant immediately reported the matter to the op. As per the instruction of the op, the damaged vehicle was taken to Bansal Motors, G.T. road, Karnal and the same was got repaired vide invoice dated 8.8.2016 and an amount of Rs.2,47,182/- was charged. That the complainant lodged the claim with the op alongwith all the relevant documents and completed all the formalities and it was assured by the op that the claim will be paid as early as possible. It is further averred that the complainant also got verified the driving licence of Ramandeep from the concerned licensing authority through RTI and the information was duly sent mentioning that driving licence No.204990/UKL of Ramandeep was valid from 24.10.2015 to 23.10.2018 and the said information was also supplied to op. That thereafter, the complainant received letter dated 22.8.2017 from the op, in which it was mentioned that “Your claim is not maintainable as the DTO office has confirmed to us under RTI that “DTO office has not issued the above mentioned driving licence as the numeral digit issued by the DTO concerned has not reached two lakhs figure till 29.11.2016 (As on the date of verification) and licence may be treated as forgery” and the claim has been repudiated. The op has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant by repudiating his genuine claim and has caused deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, estoppels, jurisdiction and suppression of true and material facts. It is submitted that complainant has lodged the claim on account of damages of his vehicle under policy of insurance in question. After receiving the damage claim from the complainant, the insurance company gone through all the documents and inquired into the matter and it was established that at the time of alleged incident on 23.7.2016 vehicle was being driven by Ramandeep (Holding DL No.204990/UKL). The answering OP got verified about the said driving license under RTI Act from issuing authority. The issuing authority has confirmed that “DTO office has not issued the above mentioned driving licence” vide letter dated 29.11.2016. So it is proved beyond doubt that at the time of accident, driver Mr. Ramandeep was driving above noted vehicle with false/ fake driving licence in violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. So, the answering op after considering all the relevant facts repudiated the claim of complainant and intimated the same to the complainant vide letter dated 17.3.2017 and 22.8.2017. It is also submitted that as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the Licensing Authority Ukhrul is not empowered to issue the driving licence to a person, who is neither residing, nor working in its jurisdiction without getting the proof of residence. Hence, the licence issued by the said authority itself is invalid. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for op tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to R3 and  closed his evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.  

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant is registered owner of Canter bearing registration No.HR-65-7363 and the said vehicle was got insured by complainant from OP at Kurukshetra vide policy No.1107023115 P106193743, which was valid from 30.8.2015 to 29.8.2016 and the complainant paid due premium for the above said insurance. It is further argued that Ramandeep was employed as driver on the above said vehicle by complainant after taking the driving test. The driving licence of Ramandeep was also seen and which was found averred that on 23.7.2016, the said vehicle was being driven by Ramandeep on normal speed and on left hand side of the road while observing with all traffic rules and he was also holding a valid and effective driving licence. The canter was hit by some unknown vehicle and the same was badly damaged. There was no fault on the part of driver of the canter. It is further argued that complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP. As per the instruction of the OP, the damaged vehicle was taken to Bansal Motors, G.T. road, Karnal and the same was got repaired vide invoice dated 8.8.2016 and an amount of Rs.2,47,182/- was charged. That the complainant lodged the claim with the OP alongwith all the relevant documents and completed all the formalities but the claim of the complainant has not been paid by the OP which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the law laid down in cases  National Insurance Co.Limited Vs. Ashwani Kumari and others,  MA No.1.09.2017 IA No.1/2017 decided ib 1.09.2019  by Honble National Commssion and  Burnaka Jitgaru Vs.  United India Insurance Co.Limited, 2020 AIR SC 1193,New India Assurance Co.Limited Vs. Mamta Rani and others FAO No.417 of 1999 (O &M ) decided on 16.08.2017, M/s Northern  International Education  Vs.Rita Devi and others, FAO No.340 of 2017 decided on 1.1.2018,  Sandeep Kumar  and another Vs. Atam Parkash and others FAO No.8627 of 2015 decided on 20.12.2017, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Limited Vs. Sunita Mishra and others MAC  App. No.272 of 2013, decided on 5.08.2014, ICICI Lombard Vs. Sakharam and others MA No.704 of 2017 decided on 19.4.2018 and New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Sri Biswajit Dass and others MAC APP No. 73 of 2013 decided on 27.01.2017.

8.             The learned counsel for OP while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that after  receiving the damage claim from the complainant, the insurance company gone through all the documents and inquired into the matter and it was established that at the time of alleged incident on 23.7.2016 vehicle was being driven by Ramandeep (Holding DL No.204990/UKL). The answering OP got verified about the said driving license under RTI Act from issuing authority. The issuing authority has confirmed that “DTO office has not issued the above mentioned driving licence” vide letter dated 29.11.2016. So it is proved beyond doubt that at the time of accident, driver Mr. Ramandeep was driving above noted vehicle with false/ fake driving licence in violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act. So, the answering op after considering all the relevant facts repudiated the claim of complainant and intimated the same to the complainant vide letter dated 17.3.2017 and 22.8.2017. It is also submitted that as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the Licensing Authority Ukhrul is not empowered to issue the driving licence to a person, therefore, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down in the cases  Bhabhuti Singh Tyagi  Vs. Satya Prakash  RSA No. 1794 of 2014,  Ms. Bharat Construction Vs.D.M.Natinal  Insurance Co.Limited First Appeal No.423 of 2010 decided on 29.6.2018, Parasnath Jha Vs.  OIC. Petition No.983-984 of 2017, Hon’ble National  Commission and United India Insurance Co.Limited Vs. Kesar Devi and others  FAO No.5907 of 2011 decided on 14.08.2018.

9.             In this case ownership of the complainant in respect of the ill-fated vehicle, its insurance as on the date of accident are not in dispute. The accident of the vehicle in question is also not in dispute. The OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter Annexure -2 dated 17.03.2017 issued by the OP. The ground for repudiation of the claim of the complainant is that  driving licence  No. 204990/UKL was fake and not issued by the Licensing authority UKHRUL, therefore, Ramandeep was not empowered to drive the vehicle at the time of accident.  DTO, Ukhrul has verified this fact vide letter Annexure R-1 that  the said driving licence No. 204889/UKL has not been issued by their office. Therefore, the driving licence of Ramandeep, driver, who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident was not valid. However, the complainant has tried to mislead this commission by placing reliance on the document Ex.C-15 allegedly obtained  by him under the RTI Act but this document Ex.C-15 is fake and no reliance can be placed on the said document. In our view if the driving vehicle held by the driver, driving the vehicle at the time of accident is fake, then the Insurance company would not be liable to pay the insurance claim. In this case, the driving licence held by Ramandeep, who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident is found to be fake, therefore, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP. The complainant has thus not come with clean hands before this Commission. He has tried to mis-lead this Commission by manipulating the RTI information as Ex.C15, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. Further, the complainant has also filed false affidavit in support of his contentions raised in the present complaint, therefore, he does not deserves any relief and the present complaint merits dismissal. The authorities given on behalf of the complainant are not applicable to the facts of this case whereas those of given by the learned counsel for the OP are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

 

                It is pertinent to mention here that Ex.C-15 is letter of M.A.Rahman Khan,DTO  Ukhrul  wherein he has verified the genuineness of DL No.204990/KUL  whereas vide Ex.R-1 said person had stated that the said driving license has not been issued by their office. To verify the genuineness of these documents  i.e Ex.C-15 and Ex.R-1, vide order dated 10.4.2019, this Commission had written a letter bearing No.736 dated 10.4.2019 to the Deputy Commission, Ukhrul (Manipur) and  in response of the letter dated 10.4.2019, report  from DTO, Ukhrul has been received on 31.10.2019 that the said driving license has not been issued by DTO, Ukhrul. This fact also clearly proves that the driving license of  driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident was not genuine and thus the complainant has tried to mislead this Commission and the present complaint also deserves dismissal on this ground.

10.            In view of our aforementioned discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:05.04.2021                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.