BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.270 of 2019
Date of Instt. 18.07.2019
Date of Decision: 12.12.2022
Vivek Pal aged about 34 Years S/o Sh. Jeevan Pal R/o Mohalla Shergarh, Kapurthala.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. having its Branch Office, 01, 3rd Floor, Lajpat Nagar Market, Syal House Building, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regional Office at 136, Feroz Gandhi Market, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Anup Gautam, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased truck of Tata LPT 318 make having registration No.PB09-X-7630 and got the same insured from OP No.1 under policy no.2013013116P117221196. The period of insurance was from 16.03.2017 to midnight of 15.03.2018. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.05.2017 i.e. at the time when the said vehicle was duly insured. Due to the said accident, damage/loss to the tune of approximately Rs.4,00,000/- took place and vehicle was badly damaged. Matter was reported to OP No.1 and thereafter OPs deputed Sh. R. P. Gupta of R. P. Gupat & Company having their office at Ludhiana for assessment of the loss and said authorized surveyor of OPs submitted a detailed report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,48,700/- despite the fact that loss was of approximately of Rs.4,00,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant had been visiting the office of OP No.1 frequently but the officials of OP No.1 had been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and had not been doing the needful in order to harass the complainant. The OPs wrongly refuted the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 21.05.2019 by wrongly coming to the conclusion that vehicle was being driven by Mandeep Singh and said Mandeep Singh was not having any driving license. The said observation of OPs was absolutely wrong and arbitrary and the same was made in order to usurp the amount which the insurance company owed towards the complainant. Actually the said truck was being driven by S. Prabhjit Singh and Mandeep Singh was only a cleaner. Even, the report submitted by the surveyor R. P. Gupta shows that Prabhjit Singh S/o S. Karnail Singh was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident. The driving license of Prabhjit Singh was got verified by the said surveyor and he found the same to be legal and genuine. Thereafter, OPs got the said license verified from another surveyor namely S Gurbachan Singh of Patiala and found the same to be legal and genuine. Even, an affidavit was furnished by Prabhjit Singh regarding driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident. The legal opinion was sought by the OPs from Sh. Raman Kumar Sharma, Adv., who is on the penal of united India insurance company and vide his legal opinion, which was given by him on 21.12.2018, Sh. Raman Kumar Sharma, Adv. has categorically opined that in his opinion the version of the insured that the insured vehicle was being driven by Prabhjit Singh is being corroborated by GR No.297 dated 26.05.2017. From the above said documents, it is crystal clear that even the surveyor as well as the advocate appointed by the insurance company opined that the vehicle was being driven by Prabhjit Singh and not by Mandeep Singh but the OPs with malafide intention repudiated the claim of the complainant. In this way, the OPs have not discharged their duties properly and had been dishonest and negligent in performing the same. There is clear deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As per the IRDA guidelines, the OPs were duty bound to come to conclusion within one month of the final survey report but the officials of the OPs with malafide intention had been harassing the complainant for about two years and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- including loss to the vehicle with interest @ 12% per annum till realization. Further, OP be directed to pay damages on account of mental agony to the complainant and be refunded Rs.200/- as requisite court fee.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is trying to play fraud with the opposite parties. At the time of Motor Spot Survey conducted by Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta Surveyor/Loss Assessor/Investigator, the complainant disclosed the name of the driver as Mandeep Singh S/o S. Karnail Singh. The same find mentioned in the Spot Survey Report dated 01.06.2017 submitted by Sh. Tarun Kumar Gupta Surveyor with the OP No.1. As per the comment of the said Surveyor under name & address of the driver it has been specifically mentioned that the name of the driver has been copied from FIR intimation dated 28.05.2017 also supported by the insured representative at the Spot. Later on the complainant submitted another application dated 07.07.2017 with the concerned police station, in which the name of driver has been changed from Mandeep Singh S/o Karnail Singh to Prabhjit Singh S/o Karnail Singh. The said application dated 07.07.2017 is an afterthought, which was given to the concerned police station after about 1- ¼ month of the alleged damage to the vehicle in the accident. As per the copy of G.R. dated 26.05.2017 issued by Bajwa Transport Company in respect of the consignment in question, the name of driver has been mentioned as Dilbag Singh. At the time of final survey of the vehicle by M/s R.P. Gupta & Co., the name of driver has been provided to the said surveyor Prabhjit Singh S/o S. Karnail Singh. Even before the said surveyor New G.R got prepared from the same Transporter has been produced by the complainant. The Complainant has changed the driver from Mandeep Singh S/o Karnail Singh to Prabhjit Singh S/o Karnail Singh, that amounts to playing fraud with the OPs. No driving license of said Mandeep Singh S/o Karnail Singh has been provided to the OPs and as such, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP No.1 and letter dated 21.05.20198 to this effect has been written by OP No.1 to the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has manipulated the documents i.e. the G. R. No.297 dated 26.05.2017 in place of G. R. Ex.O-4 and has also procured New intimation dated 07.07.2017 in place of intimation dated 28.05.2017 and has committed fraud with the OPs by producing forged and fabricated documents. The allegations of fraud cannot be disposed off in a summary manner. The detailed evidence is required for proving the allegations made against the complainant and that being so, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and that being so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the said vehicle was met with an accident on 28.05.2017 i.e. at the time when the said vehicle was duly insured, but the other allegations as made in the complaint by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has proved on record that he is the registered owner of the Truck of TATA LPT 318, vide RC Ex.C-2. He has also proved on record that the truck was got insured from OP No.1, vide policy Ex.C-1. The policy was valid from 16.03.2017 to midnight of 15.03.2018. It has been alleged that on 28.05.2017, the truck met with an accident and the vehicle was badly damaged and suffered loss approximately of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant has proved that the matter was reported to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 deputed R. P. Gupta, the Surveyor, vide Ex.C-3, who has given his report, but the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim, vide Ex.C-4. The claim has been repudiated on the ground that the driving licence of Mandeep Singh was not produced on record despite the demand by the OP. It has been alleged by the complainant that at the time of the accident Prabhjit Singh was driving the vehicle and not Mandeep Singh. Even the surveyor Sh. R. P. Gupta has given the particulars of the driver as Prabhjit Singh and even the legal opinion of the Advocate of the OP Sh. R. K. Sharma has verified that at the time of the accident, Prabhjit Singh was driving the vehicle. The complainant had challenged this repudiation letter.
7. The OPs have alleged that at the time of the accident Mandeep Singh driving the vehicle, who has reported the matter to the police, vide Ex.O-2 on 28.05.2017, whereas Prabhjit Singh has moved an application on 07.02.2017 reporting the matter to the police. The copy of the GR has been proved by the OP and the survey report has been proved by the OP as Ex.O-5.
8. It is proved that the accident took place on 28.05.2017 and ownership and insurance is also not denied. The claim was repudiated on the ground that Mandeep Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident as per spot survey report and the driving licence of Mandeep Singh was not produced, but this fact has been disputed by the complainant. The complainant has alleged that it was Prabhjit Singh and not Mandeep Singh, who was driving the vehicle. The license of Prabhjit Singh has been proved as Ex.C-5 and verification of the license of Prabhjit Singh has been proved as Ex.C-6. Even the affidavit of Prabhjit Singh has been proved as Ex.C-7. The accident took place on 28.05.2017. As per Ex.O-2 Mandeep Singh moved an application to the police, which has been duly stamped, in which it has been categorically alleged by Mandeep Singh that he is the driver of the truck No.PB09-X-7630 and in order to save Nilgai (Bluebuck), the accident took place. After two months of the accident i.e. on 07.07.2017 Prabhjit Singh, the alleged driver again moved an application to the police alleging the same thing as was alleged by Mandeep Singh. There are two reports. As per the surveyor report Ex.O-1, which was given by Tarun Kumar Gupta, he inspected the spot and gave his report on 01.06.2017, means after few days of the accident. Against the column of particulars of driver, he has categorically stated that particulars not provided, but the name of the Mandeep Singh was written on the basis of the FIR intimation dated 28.05.2017 supported by insured representative at the spot. Though, it has been alleged that there is no record in the police regarding giving of the intimation by Mandeep Singh dated 28.05.2017, but the fact remains that this document is duly stamped and the same bears the stamp of the police station and has been relied upon even by the surveyor Tarun Kumar Gupta supported by representative of insurance company as per report. Another surveyor report is of Sh. R. P. Gupta i.e. Ex.O-5/C-3. This report is dated 22.09.2017 i.e. after four months of the accident. In this report, the particulars of the driver have been mentioned as Prabhjit Singh. It has been mentioned that the vehicle was loaded with Tomato, vide GR No.269, which has been proved by the OP. There is also an opinion of the counsel for the insurance company. Perusal of this opinion Ex.C-8 shows that there is a specific reference and observation of the counsel that since two drivers have come forward and the possibility of changing of driver from Mandeep Singh to Prabhjit Singh cannot be ruled out. The counsel has given the opinion on the basis of the driving licence of Prabhjit Singh observing that the name of the driver is corroborated by the GR No.297, but there is no such document to corroborate the name of the driver Prabhjit Singh. He has further observed that the insurance company may make efforts to settle the claim on non-standard basis as the insured failed to answer the queries raised by the insurance company. This opinion clearly shows that the counsel himself is not sure that the driver was Prabhjit Singh at the relevant time. More so, it is clear that the name of the driver might have been changed from Mandeep Singh to Prabhjit Singh after about two months, when the application was moved to the police reporting the accident, whereas Mandeep Singh had immediately reported the matter to the police. Similarly, the report by the T. K. Gupta was given on 01.06.2017, whereas another report was given in the month of September. In support of this observation, we like to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, titled as “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. S. Amirtharaj” (N.C.D.R.C.) (New Delhi), wherein it is held as under:-
“Consumer Protection Act , 1986 Sections 2 (1) (g) and 21 (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, Sections 3 and 5- Insurance - Validity of driving licence-Heavy goods vehicle with hazardous material Surveyor appointed Claim repudiated-District Forum allowed the complaint-State Commission partly allowed the appeal-Revision against Driver was authorized to drive only heavy motor vehicles and not authorized to drive any transport vehicle or heavy goods vehicle with hazardous material Provision of Motor Vehicles Act, relating to endorsement for driving license for carrying hazardous goods requires special training-Driving license did not have endorsement to drive hazardous vehicles - Held , driver did not have a valid driving license-For a below erred in deciding claim in favour of complainant on non-standard basis - Order set aside - Revision allowed.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,48,700/- as assed by the surveyor with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident i.e. on 28.05.2017 till its realization and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
12.12.2022 Member Member President
