National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Meera Dhuria vs Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 17 November, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2197 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 30/03/2016 in Appeal No. 548/2015 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. MEERA DHURIA THROUGH MR. PUNEET CHHANGANI, GENERAL MANAGER, SUNEHRI CARS PVT. LTD., POWER OF ATTORNEY NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 15, SRI GANGA NAGAR, RAJASHTAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. HOUSE NO. 414, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHA DEVI, MUMBAI-400025 MAHARASHTRA 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. SITUATED AT SHOP NO. 93,94,95,FIRST FLOOR, NEW CLOTH MARKET, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 15, SRI GANGA NAGAR RAJASHTAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 Nov 2017 ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Petitioner
:
Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents
:
Mr. Shashwata Pandey, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th NOVEMBER 2017
O R D E R
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.03.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 548/2015, "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Meera Dhuria", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 01.04.2015, passed by the District Forum Sriganganagar in consumer complaint No. 571/2014, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Meera Dhuria purchased a Chevrolet Sail car on 02.05.2013 for a sum of ₹6,03,228/- bearing registration No. DL10CB 6336 and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party (OP) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period, 02.05.2013 to 01.05.2014 for a sum of ₹5,51,285/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 20.05.2013 in Sriganganagar on NH 15 with a Canter, in which the car is stated to have been totally damaged. An intimation about the accident was furnished by the complainant to the OP Insurance Company and later on, the claim form alongwith necessary documents was submitted. The insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss, but, on the refusal of the insurance company to pay the claim, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay the insured sum of ₹5,51,285/- for the damaged car, alongwith a compensation of ₹2 lakh for mental harassment etc. and ₹1 lakh spent on hiring other vehicle as well as ₹11,000/- for litigation cost.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written reply before the District Forum, saying that at the time of the accident, the person driving the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. There was, therefore, violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and hence, the claim in question was not payable to the complainant. The Insurance Company had got the investigation done through A.P. Singh investigator, who obtained a report from the District Transport Officer (DTO), Sangrur, Punjab, according to which, licence No. 2438 had been issued in the name of Amandeep Singh s/o Teza Singh and not in the name of Jitender Singh, the driver of the vehicle in question.
4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint vide their order dated 01.04.2015, saying that the certificate issued by the DTO, Sangrur, had not been proved on record. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.
5. The State Commission allowed the appeal, relying upon the document of DTO, Sangrur and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.
6. The main thrust of the argument taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant states that the onus to prove that the licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident, was a forged and fabricated document, was upon the OP Insurance Company itself. The OP had failed to discharge that onus and hence, there was no justification for the repudiation of the claim. The learned counsel stated that the report made by the office of the DTO, Sangrur could not be relied upon, as it was just a 'remark' on the letter submitted by the investigator to that office. On the other hand, the occurrence of the incident and damage to the car had been duly confirmed from the material on record, including the report of the surveyor, which brought out that it was a case of total loss. The claim should, therefore, have been allowed by the OP Insurance Company.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company argued that the petitioner/complainant had nowhere stated in their pleadings that the driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident. They had simply stated that the onus to prove that the licence was not valid, was upon the OP Insurance Company. The OP had duly discharged that onus by procuring a report from the office of the DTO, Sangrur according to which the driving licence No. 2438 had been issued in the name of Amandeep Singh and not Jitender Singh, driver. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has drawn attention to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rukmani & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd." [1998 (9) SCC 160] and the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in "Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 271/1995 decided on 30.01.2002, "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shrafat & Ors." saying that if the insurer failed to establish the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, they were liable to pay the claim. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Kr. & Ors." [MAC. APP. No. 28/2005 and allied cases decided on 17.04.2007], in which, the same principle had been stated. In reply, the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Co. stated that the cases cited by the petitioner related to third party claims only.
9. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
10. The main issue for consideration in the matter is whether the driver of the vehicle was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident, in which the vehicle is stated to have been totally damaged after colliding with a Canter. It is true that the assessment of loss was carried out by a surveyor appointed by the OP Insurance Company, in which the factum of death and loss to the vehicle was established, but the OP Insurance Company also got an investigation done in the matter by appointing an investigator A.P. Singh. The said investigator wrote a letter to the DTO, Sangrur seeking verification of licence No. 2438 dated 07.06.2009, stated to be in favour of Jitender Singh, driver. It has been reported on the said letter by DTO-cum-Licensing Authority, Sangrur that driving licence No. 2438 had been issued in the name of Amandeep and was valid for the period from 12.06.2009 to 11.06.2012. The said report of the licensing authority, Sangrur has not been controverted anywhere by the petitioner/complainant by producing any evidence to the contrary. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner/complainant that the onus to prove that the licence was not valid, has been duly discharged by the OP Insurance Company by producing report from DTO-cum-Licensing Authority, Sangrur. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said report is not a valid document, is not tenable at all because there is no other prescribed form or procedure, according to which such reports are issued by the licensing authority. Once the initial onus has been discharged by the Insurance Company, it was the duty of the petitioner/complainant to prove, whether such report was false or that the driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence. We tend to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company that the complainant has nowhere stated that Jitender Singh was in possession of a valid licence. It is made out, therefore, from the facts and circumstances on record that there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, and the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The impugned order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind and the same is upheld. This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER