State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Naresh Kumar Bhatia vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 2 August, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 242 of 2013 Date of Institution : 07.06.2013 Date of Decision : 02.08.2013 Naresh Kumar Bhatia, House No.2187, Ward No.2, Kaziwara, Ambala City, Haryana. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/Opposite Party Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of Indica Car bearing Regd. No.HR-01-W-1947, got the same insured, from the Opposite Party, for the period from 17.08.2010 to 16.08.2011, for the insured declared value of Rs.2,07,000/-. The said car met with an accident, on 25.06.2011, while it was being driven by Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, who was having a valid driving licence. The complainant intimated the Opposite Party, with regard to the said accident, whereupon a Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by it, to assess the loss. Thereafter, the claim was filed. It was stated that, the complainant was intimated that the driving licence of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, who was driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was only valid upto 16.06.2004, and, as such, he was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The said letter was duly replied to, by the complainant, vide letter dated 26.11.2011, stating therein, that the driving licence of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, was valid upto 16.02.2031.
3. It was further stated that the complainant also approached the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), to get the information about the said driving licence of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, who vide letter dated 19.01.2012 informed that the said licence was duly issued, under the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the Opposite Party failed to appreciate the fact that the said licence was a genuine one, and the same was issued to the holder, at the age of 18 years, and it was valid upto the age of 50 years. It was further stated that still the Opposite Party, repudiated the claim filed by the complainant, vide letter dated 12.02.2012, on the ground that, at the time of the alleged accident, Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, who was on wheels, was not holding the effective and valid driving licence, which fact was statedly confirmed by the concerned Regional Transport Authority/Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad).
4. It was further stated that though Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, who was driving the vehicle, in question, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was holding a valid and effective driving licence, yet, the Opposite Party, illegally and arbitrarily, repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant, as a result whereof, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to him. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to pay Rs.5 lacs, which included the claim amount, as also compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment.
5. The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the complainant got his Indica car bearing Regd. No.HR-01-W-1947, insured from it, for the period from 17.08.2010 to 16.08.2011, which met with an accident on 25.06.2011, while it was being driven by Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia. It was stated that, as soon as, intimation with regard to the accident was received by the Opposite Party, it appointed Er. Rajesh Wadhawan, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who assessed loss caused to the vehicle, to the tune of Rs.87,000/-, after deducting the depreciation value, and compulsory excess Clauses, as per the terms and conditions of Policy. It was further stated that, while processing the claim of the complainant, the Opposite Party, sent the driving licence of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, to its Branch Office at Fatehabad, for getting the same verified from the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehbad). It was further stated that after verification of the said licence of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, from the Licensing Authority concerned, it was revealed that the same was valid upto 16.06.2004, whereas, the accident took place on 25.06.2011. It was further stated that the complainant was also asked to furnish his comments, with regard to the validity period of the said licence of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, but he did not give any reply to the same. It was further stated that since the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the claim of the complainant was legally and validly repudiated by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, driver of the vehicle, driving the same, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, and, as such, the claim of the complainant was legally and validly repudiated by the Opposite Party.
8. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, as per copy of the driving licence, at page 37/12 of the District Forum file, the same was issued in favour of Sanjeev Bhatia, son of Sh. Naresh Bhatia, by the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), bearing no. 63997SDT on 17.06.1999, which was valid upto 16.02.2031, for motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep. He further submitted that, there were no cuttings, in the dates of issuance of licence and the validity period thereof, on this document. He further submitted that the original licence of Sh. Sanjeev Bhatia, is in possession of the Police of Police Post, Sector 49, Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, in case FIR No.266/11, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A. He further submitted that this licence was issued, in favour of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that, if after the issuance of the licence, in question, for the period aforesaid, in favour of -Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, any official of the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), made any cutting, in the validity period thereof, without issuing any show cause notice, to him (Sanjeev Bhatia), he was not bound by the same. He further submitted that the Public Information Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tohana, gave information, copy whereof is at page 45 of the District Forum File, from which it was evident, that the cutting in the register, maintained for making entries of the licences issued, was done by the then official himself, according to which, the licence was valid upto 16.06.2004. He further submitted that since the official of the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), himself made cutting, without the knowledge of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, in whose favour, the licence was issued, and without issuance of any show cause notice, to him, before making such incorporation/cutting, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said, that the licence being held by Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, was not valid and effective, on the date of accident. He further submitted that the finding of the District Forum, to the contrary, being perverse, is liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party, submitted that information was sought from the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), and it was informed that the licence being held by Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, who was driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was only valid upto 16.06.2004. He further submitted that, as such, Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, at the relevant time, when the vehicle met with an accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, for driving the same, and, thus, the claim of the complainant was legally and validly repudiated. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
13. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The factum, that the vehicle, in question, owned by the complainant, was got insured by him, from the Opposite Party, for the period, in question, was admitted, by it (Opposite Party). The question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, driver of the vehicle, which met with an accident, was holding a valid and effective driving licence, or not. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the driving licence, copy whereof, is at page 37 of the District Forum file, produced on the record, in relation to Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, was not fake. As stated above, the driving licence, copy whereof is at page 37 of the District Forum file, was issued in favour of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, and it was valid upto 16.02.2031, for driving motorcycle, scooter, car and jeep. There is, no cutting, in any of the particulars, mentioned in copy of this licence. The date of birth of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, recorded in this licence is 17.2.81. As is evident from the letter at page 42 of the District Forum File, sent by the Public Information Officer (SDM) Tohana, to Sh. Sanjeev Bhatia, the said licence was issued under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:-
14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. - (1) A learners licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence.
(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall
(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(b) in the case of any other licence -
(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier
14. From the afore-extracted provisions of Section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is evident, that if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years, on the date of such issue, or renewal, it would be effective for a period of twenty years, from the date of such issue, or renewal or until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier. It was according to this Section, that the driving licence was issued, in favour of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia. The driving licence was issued upto the date of attaining the age of 50 years, by Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, though the period of 20 years, from the date of issuance of the licence which was to expire on 17.09.2019, fell earlier to attaining the age of 50 years. Whatever the case may be, since the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), issued the driving licence, to Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, extracted above, it was either to remain effective for a period of 20 years, or upto attaining the age of 50 years, which ever was earlier. Even if, it is taken that it could only be issued for a period of 20 years, then it was to expire on 17.09.2019. Viewed from any angle, the driving licence, issued, in favour of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, under the provisions of Section 14 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even if, taken to be valid for 20 years, was valid and effective, on the date of accident.
15. No doubt, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the Opposite Party, received the information, from the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), to the effect, that the licence was valid upto 16.06.2004. However, from the information, sought by the complainant, from the Public Information Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tohana, copy whereof, is at page 45 of the District Forum file, it is evident, that cutting, in the register was done by the then Clerk/official. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Licensing Clerk O/O the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), was summoned for recording his statement, by the District Forum. His statement was recorded by the District Forum, on 17.12.2012. In his statement, he stated that, as per the record, the said driving licence was valid upto 16.06.2004. He further stated, in his statement, that as per the initial entry, in the register, in relation to the driving licence of Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, the same was valid upto 16.06.2031 (infact 16.02.2031), but that was cancelled and instead of that, it was written as 16.06.2004. The cutting, in the entry, is further evident, from the extract of the register, produced by that Clerk, which is at page 17/80 of the District Forum file. Such cutting, in the register, having been made by the concerned official, without the approval of the Licensing Authority, and without issuing show cause notice to Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, in whose favour, the said driving licence was issued, which was valid upto 16.02.2031, at his back, could not bind him. If the period of validity was wrongly recorded, in the register, and the same was to be corrected, it was required of the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), to issue show cause notice, to Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, asking him, to explain, as to why necessary correction be not made, in his driving licence. Since, no show cause notice, was issued to Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, before cancelling the initial entry, in the register, and the driving licence issued, in his favour, was valid upto the year 2031, under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even if, it is presumed that it could only be issued for 20 years, it was valid on the date of accident, and, as such, the driver of the vehicle, was holding a valid and effective driving licence, for driving the same, at the time of accident. The District Forum was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion.
16. No doubt, the Opposite Party, repudiated the claim of the complainant, on the ground, that Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, driver, driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was not holding a valid and effective licence, just on the basis of wrong information, having been supplied by the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), without going into further details, as to how, the cutting in the validity period of the same (licence), in the relevant register, was made, at the back of the driver, who was holding the same, and by whom. In view of the discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs that Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, was holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of accident, in our considered opinion, the repudiation of claim of the complainant, by the Opposite Party, was illegal and arbitrary. By illegally and arbitrarily repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service.
17. The next question, that requires decision, is, as to how much amount of claim, the complainant was entitled. In this case, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed by the Opposite Party, to give his report, with regard to the loss, caused to the vehicle, in the said accident, who gave the same (report), copy whereof is Annexure R-3. According to this report, the complainant was entitled to Rs.87,000/-, on account of loss, caused to the vehicle, in the accident, which was duly insured, with the Opposite Party. Nothing could be brought, on record, that the report of the Surveyor, and Loss Assessor, which is based on cogent material and data, was incorrect, in any way. Relying upon the said report of the Surveyor, and Loss Assessor, it is held that the complainant is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.87,000/-.
18. The complainant also claimed compensation, in the sum of Rs.5 lacs, including the claim amount, on account of mental agony and physical harassment. It may be stated here, that the Opposite Party just acted on the basis of the report of the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), to the effect, that the driver of the vehicle, who was driving the same, at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as the validity period of the same, had already expired, on 16.06.2004. No doubt, the Opposite Party did not go into further details, nor the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, appointed by it, tried to properly scrutinize the documents of the Licensing Authority, Tohana (Fatehabad), before coming to the conclusion, that Sh.Sanjeev Bhatia, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Thus, it could not be said that only the Opposite Party was at fault, in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. However, there was negligence, to some extent, on the part of the Opposite Party, as it neither got proper verification, in relation to the driving licence, being held by the driver, nor the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, acted in a careful manner, before coming to the conclusion that the driving licence was not valid. Mental agony and physical harassment, was, therefore, caused to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, if compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment, is granted, to the complainant, it would meet the ends of justice.
19. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
20. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
21. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is partly accepted, in the following manner:-
(i.) The respondent/Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.87,000/-, to the appellant/complainant, on account of loss caused to his vehicle, in the accident, the same being insured by it, as per the report Annexure R-3 of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor.
(ii.) The respondent/Opposite Party shall also pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the appellant/complainant.
(iii.) The amounts mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) shall be paid by the respondent/ Opposite Party, to the appellant/ complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization.
22. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
23. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
August 2, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg