State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldeep Singh vs United India Insurance Co. on 10 February, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry Heading1 Heading2 First Appeal No. A/1114/2019 ( Date of Filing : 24 Dec 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/09/2019 in Case No. 95/2018 of District Kurukshetra) 1. KULDEEP SINGH VILLAGE SURJA TEHSIL BABAIN KKR HARYANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. RAILWAY ROAD KKR. HARYANA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: A S Narang, PRESIDING MEMBER Suresh Chander Kaushik MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 10 Feb 2022 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1114 of 2019 Date of Institution: 11.12.2019 Date of Decision: 10.02.2022 Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Chuhar Singh, R/o Village Surja, Tehsil Babain, District Kurkshetra ....Appellant Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd., Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager. ......Respondent CORAM: Mr.A S Narang, Judicial Member.
Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.
Present:- Mr. Raghav Sharma, counsel for the appellant. O R D E R A.S. NARANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: (The matter has been heard through virtual hearing).
Delay of 47 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Mr. Kuldeep Singh (Appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.09.2019, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short "The District Consumer Forum") has dismissed his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the United India Insurance Company Ltd (Respondent).
3. Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of Truck bearing registration No.HR65-4634, which he had got insured from the respondent vide policy No.1107023114P100565647 for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- for the period 23.04.2014 to 23.04.2015. Unfortunately, on 15.09.2014, the truck met with an accident at Charbra near Hasan Valley, Himachal Pradesh. FIR No.132 of 2014 was registered with the Police Station concerned regarding this accident. Complainant was driving this truck and he also suffered injuries in the accident and the truck was also damaged. As per the complainant, the damaged vehicle was inspected by the surveyor of the respondent and later on he got it repaired from Ganpati Workshop, Karnal. He also purchased spare parts from Mayur Auto Traders, Panipat. He spent Rs.5,16,491/- on the repair of this truck. He lodged a claim for this with the respondent. However, on 20.07.2015, respondent repudiated his claim on the ground that he was not having a valid driving license on the date of accident. Complainant alleged that he was holding a valid driving license, which had been issued on 21.09.2010 and was valid on the date of accident. The respondent was not justified in repudiating his claim. On these facts, complainant filed the complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra.
4. In the written reply, respondent denied the case of the complainant. Respondent alleged that it had got the driving license of the complainant verified from the District Transport Officer, Nagaland and the same was found fake. The issuing authority had reported that the license produced by the complainant was a fake one and accordingly it repudiated the claim of complainant. Respondent also rejected the claim of complainant on the ground of maintainability, limitation; jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and locus standi etc.
5. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) and documents Letter dated 20-07.2015 from respondent (Annexure C-1), Cash/Bill Memo of Mayur Auto Traders (Annexure C-2), Labour Job of Ganpati Motor Workshop (Annexure C-3), Invoice of Bablu Recovery Service (Annexure C-4), Cash Memo of Beas Reparing & Welding Works (Annexure C-5), Verification Letter dated 26.05.2016 of DTO, Phek, Nagaland (Annexure C-6), Driving License of appellant issued on 21.09.2010 (Annexure C-7), Driving License of appellant issued on 08.09.2015 (Annexure C-8), Schedule of insurance premium (Annexure C-9), Registration Certificate of truck (Annexure C-10), Hospital Summary (Annexure C-11), Hospital Summary (Annexure C-12), Letter dated 22.06.2016 (Annexure C-13), Adhaar Card of appellant (Annexure C-14), OPD Record (Annexure C-15), Hospital card (Annexure C-16).
6. On the other hand, respondent tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. H.C. Munjal, Sr. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Ex.RW1/A) and documents Insurance Policy from 23.04.2014 to 22.04.2015 (Ex.R-1), Motor Claim Form (Ex.R-2), Photocopy of Driving License of appellant (Ex.R-3), Verification Letter dated 05.05.2015 from DTO, Phek, Nagaland (Ex.R-4), Report dated 30.05.2015 of Investigator and Loss Assessor (Ex.R-5), Repudiation letter dated 03.08.2015 (Ex.R-6), Report of Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor (Ex.R-7).
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on the record, vide impugned order dated 19.09.2019, the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint and held that the complainant was not holding a valid Driving License on the date of accident. In fact, the Driving License of appellant was a fake one and accordingly there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and the complainant was not entitled to any compensation.
8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Kurukshetra, complainant has filed this appeal.
9. We have heard Mr. Raghav Sharma, counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the record of District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra.
10. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Raghav Sharma, counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of the law. He submitted that the District Consumer Forum has relied upon the RTI report to dismiss his claim. The RTI report is of no consequence and does not establish that the license produced by him was a fake one. He further argued that the complainant has produced on record Annexure C-7, which showed that his license was valid one and it was valid upto 20.09.2016. Mr. Raghav Sharma, counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order be set aside, appeal be allowed and the complainant be awarded the compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of respondent.
11. We have perused the impugned order. While dismissing the complaint, the District Consumer Forum has observed as under:-
"From the pleadings and documents placed on the file, it is not disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 15.09.2014. The complainant lodged a FIR bearing No.1327 dated 15.09.2014 in P.S. Dhalli, District Shimla. Further, the complainant had informed the OP about the said accident and submitted his claim alongwith documents, upon which, the OP deputed Satish Kumar, Enginee, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who submitted his report dated 21.01.2015 (Ex.R-7) assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.2,86,722/-. However, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question namely Kuldeep Singh i.e. the complainant was not holding a valid Driving License. To support his contention, the complainant produced report from Government of Nagaland, Phek, Nagaland as Annexure C-6 and in that document, the date of expiry of DL No.2080-7/PK/PROF is shown as 20.09.2013, whereas, the accident took place on 15.09.2014, meaning thereby, as per this report at the day of accident, this DL was not valid. The complainant further produced copy of his DL bearing No.20807/PK/PROF as Annexure C-7 and in that DL, the date of expiry is mentioned as 20.09.2016 and date of birth is mentioned as 09.05.2014. However, it is pertinent to mention here that both the documents Annexure C6 and C7 are issued by the Licensing Authority, Phek, Nagaland. Moreover, the complainant further produced copy of his latest chip type DL as Annexure C-8 and in that DL the issuing authority is Licensing Authority, District Transport Officer, Kohima and date of birth is mentioned 01.01.1974. So, the complainant has produced three type of driving licenses and details of all are different from each other. Therefore, the stand taken by the complainant is contradictory in itself. On the contrary, to support his contention, the OP has produced copy of DL of the complainant as Ex.R3 taken by the PS Dalli on 03.10.2014 in the criminal case. The OP had received the verification report of said DL No.20807/PROF/2010 received under RTI Act from the Government of Nagaland, Phek, Nagaland as Ex.R4 and in that report, it is specifically mentioned that the DL is "not genuine/fake". The case law titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Aggarwal (supra), produced by the OP, is fully applicable to the fact of instant case, whereas, on the other hand, the case laws produced by the complainant rests on different footings and the same the facts of the case laws are not identical to the case in hand. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view the complainant has failed prove his case and the OP has committed no mistake in repudiating the claim of the complainant. We found no deficiency on the part of the OP".
12. Before the District Consumer Forum, the complainant had produced the report Ex.C-6 and the copy of the license Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8. On the other hand, the respondent had produced a copy of the driving license Ex.R-3, which had been taken into possession by the Police Officials of Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) on 03.10.2014 in the criminal case. The respondent had got the license, which the complainant had produced before the police, verified from the Licensing Authority, Nagaland and the Licensing Authority reported that this was a fake one. Appellant could very well rebut this evidence and prove that the report collected by the respondent throguh RTI was wrong. Appellant is the owner of the vehicle and he himself was driving the same. He could very well prove as to how he had got his license issued. Admittedly, he is a resident of Kurukshetra (Haryana) and the license was issued from Nagaland. We have perused Annexure C-6 i.e. a letter by District Transport Officer, Nagaland to DTO. This letter states that the license was valid upto 30.09.2013. Complainant had also produced the copy of license Annexure C-7, which stated that the license was valid upto 20.09.2016.
13. Complainant had also produced a copy of the chip- based license (Ex.C-8). In case the copy of the license produced by the complainant before the police officials is compared with the copy of chip based license before the District Consumer Forum, it would show that the license produced by the complainant before the police officials had been issued in the year 2010. However, the chip-based license produced by him before the District Consumer Forum (Annexure C-8) would show that it was issued on 08.09.2015. Complainant was already holding the license which had been issued to him in the year, 2010. In these circumstances, it is not understandable as to how he managed to get another license (Ex.C-8) in the year, 2015. As per law, a person can hold only one driving license. Further, there is difference in the Date of Birth of the complainant as mentioned in the copy of license (Ex.C-7) and in the copy of chip-based license (Ex.C-8). In Ex.C-7, the Date of Birth is mentioned as 09.05.1974. However, on chip-based license, the Date of Birth is mentioned as 01.01.1974.
14. We are of the considered view that on the date of accident, the complainant was not holding effective and valid driving license. In order to support his claim, the complainant has made a crude attempt and managed to produce a fabricated license. The DL number on the copy of license (Ex.C-7) also does not tally with the DL number on the copy of license (Ex.C-8). It is also strange that on the copy of license (Ex.C-8), date of issue is mentioned as 08.09.2015, yet in the authorization mentioned below it is mentioned that he was entitled to drive motorcycle without gear from 21.09.2010, light motor vehicle from 21.09.2010 and transport vehicle from 04.09.2012. We are of the considered view that the District Consumer Forum has appraised the evidence on the record properly and rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. We affirm the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the present appeal.
February 10th, 2022 Suresh Chander Kaushik A S Narang Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench Addl. Bench R.K [ A S Narang,] PRESIDING MEMBER [ Suresh Chander Kaushik] MEMBER