Punjab

Moga

CC/17/40

Neeraj Kumar Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Arun Tayal

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 40 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 25.04.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 08.11.2017

 

Neeraj Kumar Garg son of Padam Sain son of Kishori Lal permanent resident of 17/32, Street no.2, Vijay Sagar Sood Wali Gali, Anand Nagar, Moga District Moga, now residing at B-68, Ground Floor, Ardee City, Sector 52, Gurgaon.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at Kotkapura Road, Baghapurana, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.       Sub-Divisional Magistrate Cum Licensing Authority, Baghapurana, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga.

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Arun Tayal, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Arun Sood, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Ashok Goyal, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.2.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at Kotkapura Road, Baghapurana, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, through its Branch Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay a sum of Rs.1,63,500/- on account of insurance claim, which is illegally repudiated by opposite party no.1 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f 2.7.2015 till the date of realization. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.16,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted to complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of car bearing registration no.PB-29G-0301 which was got insured from opposite party no.1 for the period 26.09.2013 to 25.09.2014. During the policy period, the car of the complainant met with an accident on 29.07.2014 and intimation of same duly given to opposite party no.1. The car of the complainant damaged beyond repair as body shell of the car totally damaged in said accident. After that the complainant immediately filed an insurance claim with opposite party no.1 for total loss/net of salvage basis as the vehicle was not in repairable condition. Opposite party no.1 appointed a surveyor who inspected the car, but he did not give any report to complainant. Thereafter, the complainant through his father had written a letter to opposite party no.1 to know the status of his claim. In reply, opposite party no.1 sent a letter dated 28.10.2014 alongwith surveyor’s letter dated 11.10.2014 in which surveyor had directed the complainant for repairing the car instead of total loss. After receiving the aforesaid letters dated 28.10.2014 and 11.10.2014 the complainant approached the office of opposite party no.1 and requested them for total loss as the car is not safe for travelling after repair and change of body shell. Thereafter, in the month of March, 2015 the complainant received a letter from the surveyor in which he made a threat that if the complainant will not start the repair of car, then it will be recommended to be treated as no claim. After receiving the aforesaid letter from the surveyor the complainant immediately approached to opposite party no.1, but they did not listen anything. Under threat, the complainant repaired his car and received the delivery of his car from the repairer on 2.7.2015 and before delivery of the car, the complainant paid a bill of Rs.1,63,500/- to the repairer. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite party no.1 and submitted all the required documents alongwith original bills issued by the repairer with them. The official of opposite party no.1 told the complainant that the claim amount will be directly transferred in the bank account of the complainant within 15 days. But the complainant did not receive any payment from opposite party no.1. On it, the complainant again approached to opposite party no.1, who told that they did not receive the final report from the surveyor and after receiving final report, they will transfer the claim amount in his account. But again complainant had not received any payment. In the week of December, 2015, the complainant again went to the office of opposite party no.1 to know about the status of his claim and he came to know that driving license of the driver reported by the surveyor to be fake. Then the complainant confirmed about the genuineness of the license from the driver Parveen Kumar, but he told that his driving license is genuine and not fake. The said Parveen Kumar also written a letter to opposite party no.2 to know the status of his driving licenses and received a report from opposite party no.2 in respect of his driving license who reported the driving license is genuine, but they have no record in respect of said driving license. Thereafter, in the first week of August, 2016 the complainant approached to the office of opposite party no.1 and submitted the report given by opposite party no.2 regarding the genuineness of driving license of Parveen Kumar. Then, the official of opposite party no.1 told to complainant that they will inform him later. On 23.08.2016 the complainant sent a letter to opposite party no.1 to know the status of his claim. In reply, opposite party no.1 sent a letter dated 06.09.2016 to the complainant that his claim file has been closed as 'no claim' as driving license of the driver was not valid at the time of accident. After receiving the said letter, the complainant immediately approached in the office of opposite party no.1 and told to them that driving license is genuine one as he already submitted the report given by opposite party no.2, but they did not listen anything. Such an act and omission on the part of opposite parties amounts to great deficiency in service, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great financial loss, mental tension, agony and harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written replies.

                   Opposite party no.1 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as per law; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and have been telling lies to this Forum, so the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. In fact, the claim of the complainant has rightfully been repudiated due to the breach of conditions of policy by the complainant as the insured vehicle was being driven by its driver who was not holding a valid driving license at that time. However, this fact of repudiation of claim was duly informed to the complainant vide letter dated 6.9.2016. However, it is worth to state here that earlier many letters were issued to complainant for getting his car/vehicle repaired as his loss did not come within the purview of total loss, but when the claim was processed by the answering opposite party further, it was found that the insured vehicle was being driven by its driver who was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident, thus the claim has been repudiated rightly. Further as per 'claim intimation' form submitted by the complainant and as per his claim the vehicle was being driven by Parveen Kumar at the time of accident and the copy of his driving license was also submitted by the complainant with answering opposite party, but when the driving license bearing no.1619 was got verified from Baghapurara office, it was found to be in the name of Hardeep Singh son of Davinder Singh as such the driving license of the said driver Parveeen Kumar was found to be fake and the claim of the complainant was repudiated rightly by answering opposite party. The rule of estoppels also applies against the complainant due to his own acts and conducts and the complaint of the complainant is also liable to be dismissed on this score also, as the vehicle/car was being driven by the person who was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident and the complainant intentionally concealed this material fact from opposite party. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs has been made.

4.                Opposite party no.2 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against opposite party no.2 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2, therefore, the present complaint is deserved to be dismissed qua opposite party no.2; that no cause of action much less plausible cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the answering opposite party. Moreover, the complaint is false, fabricated and misconceived one. The complainant intentionally concealed the true and lawful facts from this Forum to get undue advantage from this Forum; that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. The principal of suppression applies against the complainant. Where the consumer was found to have approached consumer Fora not with clean hands and clear conscience, his complaint is liable to be dismissed. The real facts are that on 30.12.2015 Mr. Parveen Kumar son of Ram Rashpal had submitted a letter for the verification of his driving license no.1185/BPA/(LL) and 1619/BPA(NDL) alongwith Photostat copy of driving license no.1619/BPS (NDL). After due inquiry of office record, it is found that driving license no.1185/BPA(LL) was issued in the name of said Parveen Kumar by the Licensing Authority, Baghapurana. It is also found that the driving license no.1619/BPA(NDL) was not issued in the name of said Parveen Kumar. The said driving license is found to be issued in the name of Hardeep Singh son of Davinder Singh. Later on, ascertain the genuineness of the driving license no.1619/BPA(NDL) provided by said Parveen Kumar, their predecessor officer wrote a letter no.297 dated 6.1.2016 to Sh.Bhupinder Singh, PCS, ADC, SAS Nagar (Mohali), earlier SDM, Baghapurana. On the 1^st of July, 2016 their office received a reply from Sh.Bhupinder Singh, PCS, ADC, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide reply number 1619 dated 1.7.2016. After this reply, the then SDM ordered that this appears to be a clerical mistake. The then SDM Smt. Nidhi Kalotra ordered that though the driving license is not entered in the record, however the concerned authority has signed the driving license, therefore, it appears to be a clerical error. There is no negligence on the part of the applicant. Verification be given. Thereafter, the then SDM Sh. Charandeep Singh (PCS) sanctioned to enter the license in record if the fees of the applicant has been deposited in cash book, otherwise it is not valid. Therefore keeping in view the above facts, verification was not given to the applicant as there was no relevant office record and neither was there an entry in the cashbook which could prove that the fee was deposited by the applicant. The present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and bereft of material substance. The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost has been made.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit as Ex. C-1, affidavit of Sh.Parveen Kumar as Ex.C-2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-22 and closed the evidence. 

6.                On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.R.N. Bansal, Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5 and closed the evidence. Whereas, opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Amarbir Singh Sidhu (PCS) SDM Cum Licensing Authority, Baghapurana as Ex.OP-2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/10 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                The case of the complainant is that he is owner of car, which was insured with opposite party no.1 for the period 26.09.2013 to 25.09.2014. During the insurance period, on 29.07.2014 the said vehicle met with an accident and intimation regarding the accident was duly given to opposite party no.1, who appointed surveyor to inspect the vehicle and to assess the loss. The car was badly damaged beyond repair. The complainant requested for total loss as the vehicle was not in repairable condition and the car is not safe for travelling, but opposite party no.1 did not agree for the same and insisted for the repair of the car and threatened the complainant for treating the claim as no claim. On it, the complainant got repaired his car and spent Rs.1,63,500/- for the repair of car. He duly submitted all the required documents alongwith original bills of the repair of the car with opposite party no.1 for processing of his claim. The official of opposite party no.1 told that the claim amount will be directly transferred in the bank account of complainant within few days, but the complainant did not receive any payment from opposite party no.1. In December, 2015 the complainant again visited the office of opposite party no.1 to know the status of his claim, then he came to know that driving license of the driver reported by the surveyor to be fake. Then the complainant ascertained from opposite party no.2 about the genuineness of driving license, who gave its report that driving license is genuine one and not fake. The complainant submitted verification report to opposite party no.1, but despite it, vide letter dated 06.09.2016, opposite party no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that driving license of the driver was not valid at the time of accident, whereas at the time of accident driver was holding a valid driving license. This act of opposite party no.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

9.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party no.1 argued that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, as the claim has rightly been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy and duly informed to complainant vide letter dated 06.09.2016. They argued that after receiving intimation regarding the accident from complainant, they duly appointed surveyor to assess the loss. As per report of the surveyor loss did not come under the purview of total loss and it can be repaired, so the complainant was directed to get his vehicle repaired. During the processing of claim, it was found that insured vehicle was driven by a person who was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. As per claim intimation the vehicle was being driven by one Parveen Kumar at the time of accident and the copy of driving license submitted by complainant bearing no. 1619 was got verified from the DTO office, Baghapurana and it was found that the said driving license was issued in the name of one Hardeep Singh s/o Davinder Singh and it was not issued in the name of Parveen Kumar. As such, driving license was found fake and claim was rightly repudiated by opposite party no.1. The complainant intentionally concealed this fact from opposite party no.1, so he is not entitled for any claim under the policy and the present complaint may be dismissed.

10.              Counsel for opposite party no.2 argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2. The real facts are that on 30.12.2015 Mr. Parveen Kumar son of Ram Rashpal had submitted a letter for the verification of his driving license no.1185/BPA/(LL) and 1619/BPA(NDL) alongwith Photocopy of driving license no.1619/BPA (NDL). After due inquiry of office record, it was found that driving license no.1185/BPA(LL) was issued in the name of said Parveen Kumar by the Licensing Authority, Baghapurana, however driving license no.1619/BPA(NDL) was not issued in the name of Parveen Kumar and it was found that the said driving license was issued in the name of Hardeep Singh son of Davinder Singh. Later on to ascertain the genuineness of the driving license no.1619/BPA(NDL) provided by said Parveen Kumar, opposite party no.2 wrote a letter no.297 dated 06.01.2016 to Sh.Bhupinder Singh, who was posted as SDM, Baghapurana at the time when the said driving license was issued. On  01.07.2016, reply was received from Sh.Bhupinder Singh, who confirmed that the said driving license bearing no.1619 bears his signatures. After this reply, opposite party no.2 ordered that the license is issued from their office, but it appears to be a clerical mistake that the driving licence was not entered in their record and verification report was issued. As there is no negligence on the part of applicant, so he further gave sanction to enter the license in the record, except it there was no record found in the office of opposite party no.2.

11.              Now, it is admitted case of the parties that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with opposite party no.1, which met with an accident during the insurance period. The complainant gave intimation regarding the accident to opposite party no.1, who appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. It is further admitted that on the directions of opposite party no.1, the complainant got repaired his vehicle. It is further proved that the complainant spent Rs.1,63,500/- for the repair of his vehicle, which is clearly proves from copies of bills Ex.C-7 to C-11. Now the only dispute is that as per opposite party no.1 driving license of Parveen Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not genuine and found fake, as on verification called upon by surveyor from DTO Office, Baghapurana, the driving license bearing no.1619/BPA(NDL) was not issued in the name of said Parveen Kumar and the said driving license was found to be issued in the name of one Hardeep Singh s/o Davinder Singh. So, they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. On the other hand, counsel for complainant argued that on their application for the verification of the driving license in question, the DTO office, Bagharpurana i.e. opposite party no.2 confirmed that driving license was issued by their office and it bears signatures of SDM, who was posted at that time, but only due to clerical mistake it was not entered in the office record of opposite party no.2. It is only error on the part of official of opposite party no.2 and there was no negligence on the part of complainant as well as Parveen Kumar driver and they issued verification report declaring that the license is genuine. The verification report given by opposite party no.2 to complainant is Ex.C-20 on file. Opposite party no.2 i.e. SDM Baghapurana, who was issuing authority of the driving license in question also confirmed the version of complainant that in their record the driving license bearing no.1619 issued in the name of one Hardeep Singh and driving license of the same number was also issued in the name of Parveen Kumar and on the application of Parveen Kumar they got verified from SDM posted at that time at Baghapurana, who confirmed that driving license issued in the name of Parveen Kumar bears his signatures and it appears to be a clerical mistake that entry of issuance of driving license in the name of Parveen Kumar was not entered in their office record, but however driving license is genuine and there is no negligence on the part of complainant as well as said Parveen Kumar. They produced on record copies of documents regarding the verification of driving license as Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/10. From all these documents, it is proved that driving license of Parveen Kumar driver was issued by opposite party no.2 and the same is a genuine document and it is only error or negligence on the part of staff of DTO office, Baghapurana, who did not enter the driving license in question in their record and wrongly issued driving license in the name of Hardeep Singh on same number. There is no negligence or fault on the part of driver Parveen Kumar and his driving license was duly issued by DTO, Baghapurana, so in these circumstances, opposite party no.1 cannot declare driving license in question as fake and cannot repudiate the claim on this ground.

12.              From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that driving license of driver Parveen Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident is genuine one and opposite party no.1 wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of fake driving license, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party no.1. Hence the present complaint stands allowed against opposite party no.1 and dismissed against opposite party no.2. As such, opposite party no.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,63,500/- to complainant as insurance claim alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 06.09.2016, when they repudiated the claim of the complainant till realization. Further opposite party no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) to complainant consolidated as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by him as well as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 08.11.2017

 

                               (Bhupinder Kaur)                   (Vinod Bala)        (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                     Member                              Member                  President