DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  JALANDHAR

  Complaint No.325 of 2017               Date of Instt. 04.09.2017               Date of Decision: 20.04.2021

Prem Chand s/o Jaisi Ram, resident of House No. 96, Ashok Nagar, Nandanpur Road, Maqsudan, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.       United India Insurance Company Limited, Opp: G.P.O Jalandhar 144001 through its Branch Manager, Branch Office at 1, Syal House, Lajpat Nagar Market, Jalandhar.

2.       United India Insurance Company Limited, Head Office : 24 Whites Road, Chenai 600014 through its authorized signatory.

          …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SMT. JYOTSNA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For Complainant               :        Sh.Varun Khanna, Advocate

For OPs                            :         Sh.K.L. Dua, Advocate

ORDER:-

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.           The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that vehicle of the complainant i.e. TATA Motors/Indigo SC LS BS III bearing registration no. PB01-9058 was insured with the opposite party vide policy no. 201301311SP06577289 on 02.09.2015 and the said policy was valid up to 01.09.2016. The complainant had paid the insurance premium to OP as per rules and regulations of OPs. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs.2,00,000/-. The above said policy was issued to the complainant by OPs after thorough verification and examination of vehicle and at the time of insurance policy, it was clearly mentioned on policy that vehicle was financed with financial institutions M/s Cholomandlam. Form no. 47 was also issued by Government of Punjab for tourist permit or national permit and period of said authorization was 03.09.2015 to 02.09.2016. On 23.12.2015 the said vehicle met with an accident within the area of Dhalwan and vehicle was totally damaged in the said accident. FIR No. 311 dated 23.12.2015 under Sections 279, 337 IPC was got registered at PS Sarkaghat District Mandi. After the said accident, the information was duly sent to OPs on which OPs demanded required documents from him for finalization of the claim and directed the complainant to furnish the same to the surveyor, vide letter dated 09.05.2016. The totally damaged vehicle was taken by the complainant on supurdari through due course of law.  The vehicle was sent to Maya Motor Garage, Janta Colony G.T Road, Maqsudan, Jalandhar and accordingly Maya Motor Garage assessed the loss of the vehicle in detail.  The complainant submitted all the entire necessary documents with OP no.1 but till date the claim of the complainant has not been released by OP no.1. The complainant had visited the office of OP no.1 many times for release of his claim but all in vain.  Due to non-release of claim, complainant could not get his vehicle repaired and became totally idle and could not earn his livelihood.  Due to unemployment, the complainant could not pay the installments of the said vehicle on time and financers of the said vehicle i.e. M/s Cholamandlam Finance Co. Ltd , presented the security cheques of the complainant, which have been dishonoured and complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is also being filed against complainant by said financial  institution.  The complainant had to suffer a great financial loss due to non-release of claim by OPs for vehicle damages.  The OP is under the bounden duty to pay the claim of the complainant but OP had without any valid reason are not refunding the amount paid by the complainant. The act of OP no.1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, insptie of repeated requests made by the complainant as such OP has indulged in an unfair and illegal trade practice. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.4 lakh towards Rs.2,00,000/- loss incurred as compensation for mental harassment and cost of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a till the realization of the claim.
2. Upon notice, OPs filed written reply and contested the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the complaint. The complainant is barred by his act and conduct from filing the complaint. The complaint is barred by law of limitation. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of OPs. On merits, it was averred that  It is an admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant bearing registration no.PB-01-9058 was insured with OP no.2 on 02.09.2015 and said policy was valid up to the mid night of 01.09.2016 and insured value of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is denied that vehicle of the complainant was issued Form no. 47 issued by Punjab Motor Vehicle Department authorization for Tourist Permit or National Permit. It is correct that vehicle met with an accident on 23.12.2015 and vehicle was totally damaged. It was also correct that OP no.1 issued letter dated 09.05.2016 to complainant  and complainant was requested to submit the documents so that surveyor can be appointed.  The complainant has submitted the documents as demanded by OPs and claim was under investigation. The claim was thoroughly examined. The vehicle was used as taxi. The driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not competent to drive the Transport Vehicle and was not holding a valid driving license.  It is wrong to suggest that due to non-settlement of the claim, the complainant could not get his vehicle repaired and became totally idle.  The claim of the complainant had been repudiated by OPs, vide letter dated 24.03.2017 on the ground that holder of D/L is not authorized to drive the tourist maxi.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Sharma Divisional Manager as Ex.OP-A along with copy of document terms and conditions of the policy as Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very minutely.
5. The glance of evidence is required for settlement of the present case. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-A in support of his case. He deposed his testimony in his affidavit. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Ex.C1 is copy of letter dated 24.03.2017 addressed to Prem Chand/complainant by OP no.1 regarding repudiation of insurance claim of the complainant. On the ground that “holder of D/L is not authorized to drive the Tourist (Maxi).” Ex.C-2 is copy of letter addressed by complainant to District Transport Officer Jalandhar regarding clarification regarding license no. PB08 2015 0022672  in the name of Anil son of Prem Chand M.C.W.G/LMV/MU(GV). Ex.C-3 is copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Ex.C-4 is copy of certificate of registration issued in the name of Prem Chand complainant. Ex.C-5 is copy of Form No. 47  issued by Secretary State Transport Authority in the name of the complainant.  Ex.C-6 is copy of receipt  dated 15.10.2015 issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Transport as Ex.C-6. Ex.C-7 is copy of Form-Receipt of Tax. Ex.C-8 is copy of Contract Carriage Permit. Ex.C-9 is copy of FIR No.311 under Section 279 and 311 registered with P.S Sarkaghat District Mandi.  Ex.C-10 is copy of Form No. 38  Certificate of Fitness. Ex.C-11 is copy of letter dated 09.05.2016. Ex.C-12 is copy of list of parts, which has issued by Maya Motor Garage Janta Colony, G.T Road, Maqsudan, Jalandhar.
6. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Sharma Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd as Ex.OP-A on the record. This witness stated that the complainant has submitted the documents as demanded by OPs. The claim was under investigation and thoroughly examined. The driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not competent to drive the Transport Vehicle and was not holding a valid driving license. He was not competent to drive the Taxi.  Ex.OP-1 is copy of terms and conditions of the policy.  Ex.OP-2 is copy of certificate in respect of compliance of Section 64-B of Insurance Act 1938.
7. It is an established fact that the complainant insured his vehicle in question with OP no.1 and on 23.12.2015 the said insured vehicle met with an accident within the area of Dhalwan and vehicle was totally damaged in the accident. FIR no.311 dated 23.12.2015 registered with P.S Sarkaghat, District Mandi to this effect. The complainant alleged that he submitted all the documents as required by OPs and due to non-release of claim, he could not get his vehicle repaired and not earn his livelihood as the said vehicle was the only source of income. OP no.1 had repudiated his claim, vide letter dated 24.03.2017 on the ground that holder of D/L (MCWG/LMV/LMV-GV) is not authorized to drive the Tourist (maxi).
8. On the other hand, OPs controverted all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. OPs pleaded that vehicle of the complainant i.e. TATA MOTORS /INDIGO SC LS BS III bearing registration no. PB-01-9058 was insured with OPs on 02.09.2015 and said policy was valid up to id night of 01.09.2016. The complainant had paid the insurance premium with OPs. The claim was thoroughly examined and vehicle was used as Taxi. The OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not competent to drive the Transport Vehicle and was not holding a valid driving license.
9. From hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties and from perusal of the evidence on the record, we find that grievance of the complainant is that OP no.1 wrongly rejected his claim. The vehicle of the complainant insured with OPs on 02.09.2015 and policy was valid up to mid night of 01.09.2016. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 23.12.2015. This fact was clear that the accident of the vehicle in question took place within the currency period of the policy. The complainant has not produced on record his driving license.  Only certificate of registration Ex.C-4 placed on the record. From perusal of copy of registration certificate Ex.C-4, it has transpired that the registration certificate valid up to 26.08.2015 and accident took place on 23.12.2015 after expiry of validity of registration certificate. The complainant has not placed on record copy of driving license or renewal registration certificate. The driving license is a vital document to decide the controversy in dispute but complainant failed to place on record. From the perusal of driving license, we can easily examine that the driving license issued for what purpose i.e. LMV or HMV. From perusal of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C-3 it is clear that the complainant used the vehicle in question i.e. Tata Motors /Indigo CS  LS Bs III as taxi for commercial purposes, which is not under valid under policy.  Ex.C-1 is copy of rejection letter dated 24.03.2017 on the record. In this letter, the ground for rejection of insurance claim of the complainant clearly mentioned “holder of D/L (MCWG/LMV/LMV-GV) is not authorized to drive the Tourist maxi.” The rejection of insurance claim of the complainant is valid or not, this dispute easily decided by us from perusal of driving license of the complainant. But complainant has failed to place on record the driving license, on which basis he drive the vehicle in question. The accident took place after validity period of registration certificate. The accident took place on 23.12.2015 and registration certificate valid up to 26.08.2015.
10. Considering from above facts and circumstances of the case, we find no substance in the version of the complainant and we hereby dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The rejection of insurance claim by OPs is justified and as per terms and conditions of the policy.

11.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to rush of work and spread of Covid-19.

12.     File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                               Announced in open Commission

                     20^th of April 2021

                     Kuljit Singh

                     (President)

                     Jyotsna

                     (Member)