State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Baljit Kaur on 28 November, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.294 of 2017
Date of institution: 26.04.2017
Date of Reserve : 15.11.2017
Date of Decision: 28.11.2017
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Malwal
Road, Ferozepur City through its Divisional Manager.
now through its authorized signatory, Devi Singh, Manager, The New
India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A,
Chandigarh.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
1. Baljit Kaur aged 32 years wife of Late S.Gurpreet Singh son of
Niranjan Singh 9914514422.
2. Hargun Kaur minor daughter of Late Gurpreet Singh through her
mother and natural guardian Daljit Kaur.
3. Sukhchain Kaur wife of Niranjan Singh, all resident of Village
Rataul Bate, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.99145-14422.
....Respondents/complainants
First Appeal against order dated
09.02.2017 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.J.P.Nahar, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.Parvez Chugh, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'opposite party') has filed the present appeal against the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No.365, dated 01.08.2016 vide which the complaint filed by F.A. No. 294 of 2017 2 the complainant was allowed with a direction to opposite party to pay Rs.5,78,000/- as loss of the car alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 01.08.2016 till its realization . Opposite party was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses. It was further directed that the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the averments that the complainants are the legal heirs of Gurpreet Singh being widow, daughter and mother of the deceased Gurpreet Singh. It has been averred that Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh.Niranjan Singh was owner of car Swift Desire bearing Registration No.PB-05AA-4684 which was insured with the opposite party. Gurpreet Singh, died in an accident on 09.05.2015 (hereinafter referred as DLA). The DLA was having the driving license to drive the vehicle. The complainants submitted the claim alongwith all the documents with the opposite party. The estimate was also submitted to the insurance company. The surveyor Davinder Singh Sandhu assessed the loss of the car to the tune of Rs.5,78,150/- on net of salvage basis and salvage value was assessed as Rs.1,40,000/-. The car was got insured for Rs.7,19,150/-. Opposite party assured that the loss will be made out as and when the complainant approached the opposite party. The opposite party had been putting off the matter on one excuse or the other and later on they came to know that the claim was repudiated on account of invalid Driving License No. 83/Zira/92 F.A. No. 294 of 2017 3 possessed by DLA which was valid from 13.10.1992 to 14.02.2012 and later on got renewed upto 18.09.2017. As per School Certificate the date of birth of DLA was 11.04.1976. However, in the license, the date of birth has been mentioned as 15.02.1972. It was submitted that if the license was issued at the age of 16, still the DLA was using his license till death. Therefore, the fault, if any, was rectified by afflux of time. At the time of accident, his age was 39 years was eligible and competent to hold the license. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party to pay Rs.5,78,150/- as loss assessed by the surveyor on net of salvage basis alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of survey report till payment; Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, complaint was contested by the opposite party who filed the reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous, groundless, vexatious and misconceived to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant has completely failed to explain how opposite party No.1 was negligent or deficient in service. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case which required lengthy procedure of evidence, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as on the date the license was issued, the DLA was just 16 years of age and his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 15.02.1972 by the Registering Authority, whereas his correct date of birth is 11.04.1976. The DLA got the F.A. No. 294 of 2017 4 license No. 83/Zira/92 issued on the wrong and false information. In case the DLA was not holding a valid driving license then the claim is not payable, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite party. On merits, the issuance of the policy is admitted. After the accident intimation was received and surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,78,150/- on net salvage basis, whereas the IDV value of the car was Rs.7,19,150/- The claim was repudiated on the ground that the DLA was not eligible to hold the driving license on the date of accident.
4. The parties tendered their evidences before the District Forum.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit and documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4, whereas the opposite party has tendered its evidence the affidavit and documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10.
6. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written reply and evidences by the parties, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed as referred above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. Counsel for the appellant/opposite party has referred to the judgment 2015 (SCC) OnLine NCDRC 2631 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Porwal decided on 20.10.2015 in Revision PetitionNo.498 of 2009 wherein a reference is F.A. No. 294 of 2017 5 given that valid number of renewals of an original fake license, will not make it a valid driving license and the same will continue to be a fake driving license. It was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamla Devi - (2001) 4 SCC 342 and in the case United India Insurance Company V. Davinder Singh - (2007) 8 SCC 698.
10. According to Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if a person is under the age of 18 years then he cannot drive the motorcycle or two wheelers in any public place. In this case, as per the School Certificate the Date of Birth of Gurpreet Preet Singh was 11.04.1976 and similar date has been mentioned in Aadhar Card (Ex.OP-4) and PAN Card (Ex.OP-5). Copy of License is Ex.C-4, which was valid for 13.10.1992 to 14.02.2012. However, the date of birth is not mentioned on the driving license. This Driving License has further been renewed upto 18.09.2017.
11. It was argued by the counsel for the opposite party that on the date when the driving license was issued in the name of the DLA Gurpreet Singh, he was just 16 years of age and was not competent to hold the driving license. However, it was argued by the counsel for the respondents/complainants that the license was issued by the Licensing Authority. He further argued that no official of the Licensing authority was examined by the opposite party to know the fact under what circumstances the license was issued in case no license could be issued to a person who is below the age of 18 years. The DLA had been using this driving license and had been driving the vehicle. In case, the driving license could not have been issued to him then he F.A. No. 294 of 2017 6 would not have driven the vehicle. Moreover, at the time of accident, he was 39 years of age and in case there was any defect with regard to the age that was rectified by afflux of time. Therefore, the case of the complainant cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the Licensing Authority issued a wrong Driving License.
12. We have considered the averments made by both the parties. So far as, the judgments referred above by the appellant those are with regard to the fake license and in case the license is fake then the renewal cannot make it valid. But here in the case, the position is quite different because the license is not fake but it was issued by the competent Licensing Authority. The point raised by the counsel for the opposite party is that on the date when the license was issued to the DLA he was not 18 years of age. No doubt that no person under the age of 18 years can hold the Driving License as per Motor Vehicles Act but as per the documents produced on record by the opposite party i.e. PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and School Certificate, his date of birth is mentioned as 11.04.1976. In case, the license issued by the Licensing Authority to him under the age of 18 years but as an ordinary citizen he took a genuine Driving License. It was for the authority not to issue the driving license in case the DLA was not competent to hold the license but despite that the Driving License was issued and it was issued for the period of 20 years and after the period of 20 years, it was again renewed for another five years. At the time of death he was of 39 years of age. However, if for the sake of argument, he was under the age 18 years at the time of issuance of license. In our opinion, it was rectified as and when he attained the F.A. No. 294 of 2017 7 age of 18 years. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the opposite party does not meet the facts of the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the DLA was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Otherwise, the claim of Rs.5,78,100/- has been assessed by the surveyor appointed by the opposite party which has been allowed by the District Forum.
13. No other point was argued by the counsel for the parties.
14. Sequel to the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.
15. The appellant/opposite party had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. It deposited another sum of Rs.5,99,474/- vide receipt dated 15.05.2017, in compliance of the order dated 28.04.2017. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass an appropriate order in this regard.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) Presiding Judicial Member (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) Member November 28,2017 parmod