State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Aman Rana on 5 April, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1006 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 12.09.2008.
Date of Decision: 05.04.2013.
National Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, having Branch at
Chheharta, opposite Thums-up Factory, G.T. Road, Chheharta, Amritsar.
Through its Authorized Person/Manager, Regional Office I, National
Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Aman Rana S/o Sh. Avtar Krishan Rana, R/o House No.13, Green Avenue,
Amritsar.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
11.08.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
National Insurance Company Limited, appellant/opposite party (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Aman Rana, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, on the grounds that he purchased one car make Ford model Fiesta bearing registration No.PB-10-BL (T)-7398 in the month of October, 2006 and got it First Appeal No.1006 of 2008 2 insured from the appellant on 13.10.2006. The appellant issued the cover note no.GG31400509146093.
3. On 10.06.2007, the appellant met with an accident while returning from Manawala to Amritsar. The car was driven by the brother-in- law of the respondent, namely Sh. Rajiv Khera and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck coming from the opposite side and the car was totally damaged. The respondent immediately informed about the accident to the Police Post, Vallah, as well as to the appellant and DDR No.5 dated 12.06.2007 was recorded. The appellant assured the respondent to send the vehicle to the concerned company workshop for necessary repair and that the payment shall be made.
4. The company workshop raised a bill of Rs.3,91,265/- vide four bills dated 11.06.2007 and the respondent asked the appellant to make the payment. The appellant told the respondent to make the payment from his pocket as the insurance claim was under process and the cheque would be issued. The respondent handed over all the documents. In the month of October, 2007, the respondent was shocked to receive a letter, showing that the appellant has closed the claim file on account of the driving licence not valid for car and the claim was repudiated. The copy of the driving licence of Sh. Rajiv Khera was handed over to the appellant and he was competent to drive the scooter and car. The appellant was under contractual liability to pay the amount of Rs.3,91,265/-, but has refused to pay the genuine claim which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
5. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to pay Rs.3,91,265/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim till payment and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were raised that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 19.10.2007 as the driving licence in question is not valid for the insured First Appeal No.1006 of 2008 3 vehicle. The verification given by the Licensing Authority stated that as per their record, the driving licence in question is only valid for motorcycle. The driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. There is no consumer dispute. The claim was repudiated on merits. As per averments, the damage was caused to the car on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck coming from the opposite side, but the respondent has not submitted any declaration/affidavit, confirming that he has not lodged any claim against the owner and insured of the said truck for the recovery of third party properly loss. Under the law, double benefit for the same occurrence cannot be given.
7. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,51,220/- subject to adjustment of salvage value of Rs.10,000/-, but it was subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.
8. On merits, obtaining of insurance for the car was admitted. On receipt of intimation, the appellant referred the matter to M/s Arun Kumar & Co., Jalandhar to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,51,220/- subject to adjustment of salvage value of Rs.10,000/-, but the same was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that as per the report of the District Transport Officer sent to the District Forum, Amritsar dated 22.07.2008, it was clearly mentioned by the D.T.O. that renewal record pertaining to driving licence no.8067 dated 07.09.1994 has been destroyed in the Tehsil Complex in a bomb blast which First Appeal No.1006 of 2008 4 took place on 02.06.1999. Once the record pertaining to the renewal of the driving license of Sh. Rajiv Khera has been destroyed, it is not clear as to what made Sh. Kishan Singh, Steno to depose about the availability of the record with Smt. Balraj Kaur. Copy of the driving licence Ex.C-15 clearly shows that licence to Sh. Rajiv Khera was issued for scooter and car only and if the record was destroyed, then the respondent cannot be deprived from claiming the insurance amount for the loss caused to the vehicle. The complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to make payment of Rs.3,51,220/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-, within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.08.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent.
13. The version of the appellant is that the driver of the vehicle in question namely Sh. Rajiv Khera was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car and, as such, the claim was rightly repudiated. The District Forum has not taken into consideration the statement of Sh. Kishan Singh, Steno and allowed the complaint on flimsy grounds. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
14. On the other hand, in the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent, pleadings were repeated and it was further submitted that the driving licence of Sh. Rajiv Khera was genuinely issued by the competent authority and the same was renewed on 07.09.1994 and was valid upto 24.06.2011. The order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and the appeal may be dismissed.
First Appeal No.1006 of 2008 5
15. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other material placed on the record.
16. DDR Ex.C-5 was lodged by the respondent and in the DDR, it is clearly mentioned that the car in question suffered accident due to the negligence of the driver of the truck, coming from the opposite side. The surveyor M/s Arun Kumar & Company in his report Ex.R-5 mentioned the name of the driver Sh. Rajiv Khera and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,53,055-40 and the salvage value was assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Copy of the driving licence of Sh. Rajiv Khera has been placed on file as Ex.C-15. The investigator sought the report of District Transport Officer, Amritsar vide letter Ex.R-1 and the District Transport Officer, Amritsar reported that license no.25197 dated 03.05.1986 is in the name of Sh. Rajiv Khera S/o Sh. Om Parkash and is for motorcycle. The District Forum called the report of the District Transport Officer, Amritsar regarding the renewal of the driving licence no.8067 dated 07.09.1994. The record of driving licence no.25197 dated 03.05.1986 was available in the record and the same was given to Sh. Kishan Singh, Steno to produce in the District Forum. It was further stated by the District Transport Officer, Amritsar that the record regarding the driving licence no.8067 dated 07.09.1994 was sought and it came to the notice that the complete record of the office was destroyed in a bomb blast on 02.06.1999. The renewal record of the said licence was also destroyed. Copy of the destroyed record is attached. As per the list attached, the renewal record of the year 1994 is not available.
17. Sh. Kishan Singh, Steno brought the record regarding the driving licence Ex.C-15 and deposed that the renewal register for the year 1994 is not traceable in the DTO Office. Ex.C-15 is computer generated driving licence and no fabrication is possible. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the driving licence of Sh. Harish Kumar was issued for scooter only and with reference to the driving licence of Rajiv Khera, the word has First Appeal No.1006 of 2008 6 been mentioned as 'do', meaning that the driving licence pertaining to Rajiv Khera, as per their record, is only for scooter. As per the record brought by him, the original driving licence shown to him by the counsel is not correct. He admitted that in case the driving licence does not tally with the record of the office, the same cannot be considered as genuine. He further stated that the renewal record is in custody of Smt. Balraj Kaur, but the District Transport Officer in his report has clearly stated that Smt. Balraj Kaur used to deal with the renewal of licenses and Sh. Kishan Singh, Steno also stated so, whereas the record of renewal of driving licence for the year 1994 was destroyed in a bomb blast.
18. This witness further deposed that he has seen the report Ex.R-1 which has been issued by their office and in this, the driving licence is the same as mentioned in original i.e. 25197. Ex.R-1 is correct as per the record of the office. He reiterated that the original driving licence shown to him is not a genuine one.
19. Thus, from the statement of this witness, it is clear that the driving licence issued to Sh. Rajiv Khera was for scooter only and the renewal record is not available and, as such, it cannot be presumed that Sh. Rajiv Khera was having the driving licence to drive the car also. It is settled proposition of law that once the driving licence of driver is not valid and effective to drive the vehicle, the insurance company is well within its right to repudiate the claim. The order passed by the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises and against the evidence on record and is not sustainable.
20. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 11.08.2008 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
21. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest First Appeal No.1006 of 2008 7 accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.04.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 05, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)