State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Gurinder Singh Son Of Amar Singh on 5 March, 2010
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1019 of 2005
Date of institution : 8.8.2005
Date of Decision : 05.3.2010
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, The Mall,
Kapurthala.
2. Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, Jalandhar.
Both through Sh. K.K. Verma, Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited, Regional Office, 136 Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
....Appellants.
Versus
Gurinder Singh son of Amar Singh resident of Village Bishanpur, P.O. Lakhan,
District Kapurthala.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 23.6.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Kapurthala.
Before:-
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate For the respondent : None.
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(in short, 'the appellants') against the order dated 23.6.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(in short, the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant(in short, 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had insured his vehicle bearing registration No. PB-09-F-0426 with the appellant by paying the premium. His vehicle had met with an accident on 6.2.2004 which was driven by Surjit Singh of VPO Nadala, District Kapurthala. Respondent had First Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 2 informed the appellant about the accident and completed all the necessary formalities. Investigator of the appellants investigated the matter/incident and after that he had told the respondent to get the vehicle repaired from Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. He had spent Rs. 1,10,918/- on the repair of the vehicle. Appellants repudiate his claim on the ground that at the time of accident son of the respondent was driving the vehicle and he was not possessing the requisite driving licence. This plea of the appellants was vague and frivolous because the said vehicle was driven by Surjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh at the time of accident. Respondent pleaded that at the time of investigation, Investigator recorded his statement and the statements of Girdawar Singh, Ex.-Sarpanch of village Bishanpur Jattan, Surjit Singh and also of Gurdip Singh, Ex.-Sarpanch of village Bishanpur Jattan. Legal notice dated 24.9.2004 was served upon the appellants, which was replied by the appellants on the basis of false allegations. The action of the appellants was unlawful and this was a deficiency on the part of the appellants. Complaint was filed by the respondent with the prayer that the appellants be directed to clear his claim and also demanded Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension and Rs. 11,000/- as costs.
3. Appellants replied by taking preliminary objection that complicated question was involved in the complaint to find out who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and elaborate evidence was required to adjudicate by the Civil Court. On merits, insurance of the vehicle was admitted by the appellants. The stand of the appellant was that the abovesaid vehicle at the time of accident was not driven by Surjit Singh rather the same was driven by Gundeep Singh, who was not having the valid driving licence. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for. First Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 3
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint with costs of Rs. 250/- and the appellants were directed to pay Rs. 1,10,948/- to the respondent with interest @ 12% P.A. from 16.2.2004 till realization within one month.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.
7. The appellants filed the present appeal on the ground that the order of the District Forum is against the law and evidence as Gundeep Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident as per the claim form Ex. R-7 furnished by the respondent with the appellants.
8. It is the admitted case of the appellants that the Car make 'Indigo' was insured with the appellants for the period of 29.12.2003 to 28.12.2004, which met with an accident on 30.3.2004 near Kartarpur. The respondent informed the appellants regarding the accident and Surveyor was appointed by the appellants, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report Ex. R-1 and found the vehicle in damaged condition. The version of the respondent was that as per the directions of the appellants, he got repaired the vehicle from Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jallandhar and spent Rs. 1,10,918/-. The bills of the repair were tendered into evidence by the respondent as Exs. C-6 and C-7 to prove the amount which he had spent for the repair of the vehicle. The appellants had repudiated the claim of the respondent vide letter Ex. R-6 dated 24.8.2004 on the grounds, which are as under:-
"Please note that your file stands closed, on account of Sr. No. 1 and 3 below:-First Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 4
(1) Inspite of letters /reminders sent to you, you have not complied with the required papers/documents.
(2) xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (3) We are closing your claim-file, on account of the following reason :-
DRIVER HAVE NOT ANY DRIVING LICENCE"
9. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the vehicle, was driven by Gundeep Singh or Surjit Singh at the time of accident?
10. The appellants had repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that at the time of accident Mr. Gundeep Singh s/o Gurinder Singh was driving the vehicle as per the claim form Ex. R-7, which was submitted by the respondent himself. The said Gundeep Singh was minor and was not having the valid driving licence at the time of accident. Lateron, the respondent wrote a letter Ex. R-3 to the appellants by which he had alleged that the name of his son Gundeep Singh was narrated wrongly to the insurance persons when they had gone to conform the occurrence at the spot but actually at the time of accident Surjit Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh was driving the vehicle, who was having the valid licence. The appellants also appointed Sh. B.S. Sharma, Investigator to investigate whether Gundeep Singh was driving the Car or Sh. Surjit Singh as alleged by the respondent vide letter Ex. R-3. The Investigator investigated the matter and as per his report, he recorded the statements of Gurinder Singh respondent, Surjit Singh, Gundeep Singh and also of the eye witnesses, who were present at the spot at the time of accident i.e. Gudawar Singh Lambardar, Simran Pal s/o Sh. Ramesh Pal R/o Mohalla Chandan Nagar, Near P.S.E.B. Kartarpur, Balram Kumar alias Bitu S/o Sh. Jeet Ram R/o Chandan Nagar, Near Railway Station, Kartarpur. He also visited the Police Station, Kartarpur and met with Sh. Tarlochan Singh, MHC but no First Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 5 report of accident was reported in the Rojnamcha/Daily Dairy of Police Station Kartarpur regarding the accident of the disputed Indigo Car. The investigator after investigation given his opinion/investigation report, which is reproduced as under:-
"In our opine that Sh. Gundeep Singh was driving the car and Sh. Rana was sitting to his adjoining seat. Sh. Gundeep Singh is not having any driving license.
Claim may be settled as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy."
11. The Investigator had given his opinion on the basis of the statements of the persons, who were examined by him but no copy of statement of any person was attached with his report. The investigator in his report Ex. R-5 had given the details of questions and answers given by the persons, who were examined by him but the same do not bear the signature of any person/witness. As such, the report of the Investigator is without any supporting evidence and the same is not acceptable.
12. The respondent to prove his version that Surjit Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh R/o Nadala was driving the Car at the time of accident has tendered into evidence affidavit of himself Ex. C-10, affidavit of Gurdip Singh Ex.-Sarpanch of Village Bishanpur Jattan Ex. C-9, affidavit of Surjit Singh, who was driving the Car Ex. C-11, affidavit of Girdawar Singh Ex.- Sarpanch of Village Bishanpur Jattan Ex. C-12, which are not rebutted by the appellants by producing any cogent evidence that Surjit Singh was not driving the Car at the time of accident, which met with an accident on 6.2.2004.
13. The respondent produced the bills of repair Exs. C-6 and C-7 to the extent of Rs. 1,10,918/- which he had paid to Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jallandhar and the same are not denied/disputed by the appellants. First Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 6
14. The appellants tendered into evidence claim form Ex. R-7 to prove that in Column No. 3(a) of the Claim Form, the insured had mentioned the name of driver as Mr. Gundeep Singh s/o Gurinder Singh but in reply to the complaint, the appellants have not submitted/pleaded that claim form Ex. R-7 was ever submitted by the insured.
15. So in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellants have badly failed to prove that Gundeep Singh was driven the vehicle at the time of accident.
16. The appellants also not pleaded in the reply of the complaint that what are the requisite documents, which were not furnished by the respondent with the appellants for the settlement of the claim. As such, this version of the appellants is also without any basis for the repudiation of the claim.
17. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we affirm the same. The appeal of the appellants is meritless, as such, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 3.3.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
20. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. First Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 7
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Lt. Col. Darshan Singh [Retd.])
Presiding Member
March 05, 2010. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member