Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/315

Ishatpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Virk

20 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:315 dated 27.11.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 20.09.2023.

 

Ishatpreet Singh aged 33 years S/o. Gurpreet Singh, r/o.1662/19, St. No.10, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch office Malak Road Chowk, Jagraon through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                 …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gurpreet Singh Virk, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Ms. Shilpa Shukla, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased insurance policy No.2012013119P113707764 from the opposite party for his Hyundai i20 car model 2016 bearing No.PB-10DU-0101 valid from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021 by paying a premium of Rs.14,758/-. Unfortunately, on 17.03.2020 the car met with an accident and intimation of accident was immediately given to the opposite party. The car was taken to Brar Automotive, G.T. Road, Moga for its repair who charged Rs.70,859/- vide invoice No.B202000325 dated 12.06.2020, which was paid by the complainant from his own pocket. The opposite party deputed their surveyor to inspect the car and assess the loss but nothing was disclosed to the complainant even after passing of sufficient time. The complainant many times visited the office of opposite party but the claim amount was not released nor any reason as disclosed by the opposite party for a long time. The complainant further stated that he received a letter bearing reference No.UIIC:BOJGN2020 dated 10.09.2020 from the opposite party informing that their surveyor Er. Rajat Kumar, Moga submitted his report dated 14.07.2020 recommending to file the claim as “No claim” with remarks that the driver at the time of accident Mr. Janpreet Singh Gilhotra s/o. Gurpreet Singh was holding driving license No.PB-2520120026844 valid for MCWG only, not entitled to drive a car. Another driving license PB-2520120000546 of Janpreet Singh S/o. Gurpreet Singh was produced at a later date valid for LMV and MCWG. The opposite party sought explanation of the complainant for having two driving licenses. The complainant submitted a detailed reply dated 23.09.2020 disclosing that his brother namely Janpreet Singh was issued driving license bearing No.PB-2520120000546 for LMV and MCWG in the year 2012 valid from 24.05.2012 to 23.05.2032. Janpreet Singh is a volunteer of NGO Khalsa Aid and used to travel all over the country as and when any pandemic need occurs. Unfortunately, the said driving license of Janpreet Singh was lost along with his wallet and then he applied for duplicate driving license of the above said driving license, which was issued by the concerned authority vide No.PB-2520120025843 valid for LMV and MCWG. In the year 2016, Janpreet Singh changed his name as Janpreet Singh Gilhotra and moved an application for change of name in his driving license and surrendered the duplicate driving license. The concerned authority issued another driving license bearing No.PB-2520120026844 for MCWG only due to some clerical error with his name as Janpreet Singh Gilhotra. The complainant further stated that due to oversight, Janpreet Singh did not note the said clerical mistake in his driving license. Unfortunately, the said license was also lost and then Janpreet Singh again applied for another duplicate driving license and same has been issued vide No.PB-2520120000546 for LMV & MCWG rightly. But Janpreet Singh again lost his driving license and lastly moved an application for issuance of duplicate driving license in the year 2018. Finally, Janpreet Singh was issued the driving license No.PB-2520120026844 by the concerned RTA but due to clerical mistake it was issued for MCWG only whereas the original driving license No.PB-2520120000546 valid from 24.05.2012 to 23.05.2032 was issued for LMV (NT) and MCWG (NT). He further informed that in fact there are no two driving licenses but in fact the latest license is the duplicate of the original one having clerical mistake. The complainant further stated that there is no fault on the part of complainant but due to oversight Janpreet Singh could not check that inadvertently the word LMV is missing in his new driving license. Even Janpreet Singh verified both driving licenses which were found valid one and copy of verification was also submitted to the opposite party with reply. 

                   The complainant further submitted that despite the detailed reply, the opposite party issued another letter dated 30.09.2020 vide which his claim has been wrongly repudiated. However, Janpreet Singh is holding a valid driving license which was duly verified by the Licensing Authority, Jagraon and as such, the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that Janpreet Singh was having two driving licenses.  The complainant claimed to have suffered mental pain, harassment and humiliation etc. due to repudiation of  his genuine claim which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the complainant prayed to issuing direction to the opposite party to release the claim amount of Rs.70,859/-  along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; lack of jurisdiction; concealment of facts; lack of cause of action; the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct etc. The opposite party stated that they received the intimation regarding the accident claim of vehicle in question on 19.03.2020 and has immediately deputed Er. Rajat Kumar, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors duly approved by IRDA having his office at 1246/10, New Vedant Nagar, Moga to investigate regarding the accidental loss claim lodged by the complainant with regard to vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10-DU-0101. The said surveyor/investigator visited the workshop where the subject vehicle was submitted for repair. The said surveyor after inspection of the subject vehicle assesses the loss to the insured vehicle as Rs.67,196/- and also obtained the driving license of the driver Janpreet Singh Gilhotra S/o. Gurpreet Singh who was driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident as per the claim intimation form and submitted his final report dated 14.07.2020. The surveyors/investigators are duly approved and appointed by IRDA and they are not under the control of opposite party and they have their independent opinion. Moreover, as per the Final Surveyor Report dated 14.07.2020 there is Remarks given by the surveyor in his report to the effect that "The driver Mr. Janpreet Singh Gilhotra S/o. Gurpreet Singh at the time of accident of subject vehicle holds driving license No.PB-2520120026844 and it does not entitle him to drive LMV/Car. It is entitled to drive MCWG only. Therefore the claim of insured may be treated as No CLAIM and the file may be closed". The complainant subsequently submitted another driving License bearing No.PB-2520120000546 in the name of Mr. Janpreet Singh S/o. Gurpreet Singh which entitle to drive MCWG, LMV (NT). Accordingly surveyor submitted his (Addendum) report dated 31.08.2020. The opposite party further stated that on receipt of surveyor report dated 14.07.2020 and addendum report dated 31.08.2020, it thoroughly scrutinized the claim of the complainant in the light of the surveyor reports dated 14.07.2020 & 31.08.2020 and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, found that there was breach of insurance policy conditions as the driver was not authorized to drive the insured vehicle in question and he was also holding 2 different driving license by Mr. Janpreet Singh Gilhotra S/o. Gurpreet Singh and the same was violation of section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act and insurance policy terms and conditions. Therefore, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant and intimated the same vide letter dated 30.09.2020.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the facts mentioned in the preliminary objections. The opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.         

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C2  and Ex. C3 are the copies of application for verification of driving licenses of Janpreet Singh, Ex. C4 is the copy of invoice dated 12.06.2020 of Brar Automotive, Ex. C5 is the copy of  letter dated 10.09.2020 of insurance company, Ex. C6 is the copy of reply dated 23.09.2020 to letter dated 10.09.2020, Ex. C7 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C8 is the copy of letter dated 30.09.2020 of insurance company, Ex. C9 is the copy of registration certificate No.PB10-DU-0101, Ex. C10 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

                   During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed application for Additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 04.01.2023 subject to cost of Rs.1000/-. Then the complainant tendered documents i.e. Ex. C11 is the copy of driving license No.PB-2520120000546 of Janpreet Singh, Ex. C12 is the copy of duplicate driving license No.PB-2520120000546 of Janpreet Singh, Ex. C13 is the copy of intimation of loss of driving license of Janpreet Singh, Ex. C14 is the copy of driving license No.PB-2520120025843 of Janpreet Singh, Ex. C15 is the copy of driving license No.PB-2520120026844 of Janpreet Singh and closed the additional evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Ashok Paul, Sr. Divisional Manager of the opposite party along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of claim intimation, Ex. R2 is the copy of survey report dated 14.07.2020, Ex. R3 is the copy of Addendum Report dated 31.08.2020, Ex. R4 is the copy of letter dated 10.09.2020 of insurance company, Ex. R5 is the copy of reply dated 23.09.2020 to the letter dated 10.09.2020, Ex. R6 is the copy of letter dated 30.09.2020 of the insurance company, Ex. R7 is the copy of insurance policy and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                The complainant, the owner of i20 car bearing registration No.PB-10DU-0101 make Hyundai Model 2016 obtained a policy No.2012013119P113707764 Ex. C1 from the opposite parties which was having a validity from 24.01.2020 to 23.01.2021. On 17.03.2020, the car of the complainant met with an accident and the car was taken to Brar Automotive, G.T. Road, Moga for its repair and in the meantime on 19.03.2020, an intimation to the opposite parties was sent. The opposite parties deputed Er. Rajat Kumar, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors  who visited the workshop, inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss to be Rs.67,196/-. However, the complainant stated to have spent Rs.70,859/-  as repair charges which were paid to M/s. Brar Automotive vide memo dated 12.06.2020. In its report, the surveyor observed that during the investigation, copy of license furnished to him shows that the driver Janpreet Singh was not entitled to drive LMV/Car and he was entitled to drive only MCWG and relying upon the observation, file was closed as “No Claim”. However, the complainant submitted another driving license which as per additional report submitted by the surveyor on 31.08.2020 observed that he was entitled to drive MCWG, LMV (NT). However, the opposite parties repudiated the claim on the premise that driver Janpreet Singh was holding two different license which amounts to breach of the conditions and he is not entitled to any insurance claim.

7.                 The point of determination arises whether Janpreet Singh was having a valid driving license at the time of the accident or not?

8.                Perusal of the record shows that originally Janpreet Singh was issued a driving license ending with digit 546 in the year 2012 for LMV and MCWG which was having its validity from 24.05.2012 to 23.05.2032. However, its duplicate license Ex. C14 was got issued by the driving license holder Janpreet Singh. In the year 2016, Janpreet Singh surrendered the license because of change of his name as Janpreet Singh Gilhotra and the competent authorities issued another driving license ending with figure 844 Ex. C15 which was valid for MCWG only. However, the said license was again lost and the competent registering authority issued another duplicate license ending with figure 546 Ex. C12. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that Janpreet Singh Gilhotra had been approaching the Registering Authorities for issuance of duplicate licenses on the happening of certain events and which led to holding of two licenses at one time but the fact remains that Janpreet Singh is only person who had the original driving license having its validity from 24.05.2012 to 23.05.2032 and it was valid for LMV and MCWG. As such, it cannot be said that the driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident or any of the two licenses is fake or fabricated.  As such, in the given set of facts and circumstances, the opposite parties are not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Moreover, Er. Rajat Kumar, Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor vide his report Ex. R2 has assessed the insurance company’s liability as Rs.67,196/-. The complainant has not controverted the facts mentioned in the written statement, so far as the surveyor report Ex. R2 is concerned as the complainant has neither filed any objections to controvert the averments made in the written statement.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall pay the claim of Rs.67,196/- to the complainant as per survey report Ex. R2 along with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till date of actual payment.  The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Payment of costs shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

 

 

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                         Member                              President        

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.09.2023.

Gobind Ram.