State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Avtar Singh Son Of S. Lashkar Singh vs Senior Branch Manager, National ... on 19 July, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1421 of 2004
Date of institution : 19.11.2004
Date of decision : 19.7.2010
Avtar Singh son of S. Lashkar Singh, resident of Qualla Mohalla, Hidiabad,
Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch No.3, BMC
Chowk, Jalandhar City, Punjab.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch No.3, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City,
Punjab.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 5.10.2004 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Shri Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Avtar Singh appellant was the owner of Tara Safari bearing registration certificate No.PB-09-D-9497. It was insured with the respondents for the period from 10.5.2002 to 9.5.2003 for a sum of Rs.8,74,000/-.
2. It was further pleaded that the vehicle met with an accident on 23.5.2002 for which DDR No.26 dated 24.5.2002 was got registered in PS-Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur. The vehicle was totally damaged in this accident. It's intimation was given to the appellants who had appointed the surveyor. The loss was assessed at Rs.8,00,000/-. The damaged vehicle could be sold at First Appeal No.1421 of 2004. 2 Rs.4,00,000/- and the respondents had agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
3. It was further pleaded by the appellant that the vehicle was sold by the respondents through their surveyor Shri M.L. Mehta and Gurdeep Minhas and possession of the vehicle was given to the purchasers of the vehicle. The vehicle was sold for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- but the respondents gave only a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the appellant. The respondents withheld balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The claim of the appellant was repudiated by the respondents vide letter dated 16.5.2003. Hence the complaint for recovery of balance claim of Rs.4,00,000/-, remaining sale money of Rs.1,50,000/- along with damages, compensation and costs. Total claim for Rs.8,00,000/- was made.
4. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the Tata Safari owned by the appellant bearing registration certificate No.PB-09-D-9497 was insured with the respondents for the period from 10.5.2002 to 9.5.2003 for a sum of Rs.8,74,000/-. It was also pleaded that they had received information from the appellant about the accident on 31.5.2002. The registration of DDR No.26 dated 24.5.2002 in PS-Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur was also not denied. It was admitted that the respondents had appointed the surveyors who had submitted the report dated 14.8.2002.
5. The respondents denied if they had sold the vehicle through their surveyor or themselves or if an amount of Rs.1.5 lakh was illegally kept by them. It was admitted that the claim of the appellant was repudiated vide letter dated 16.5.2003 as the driving licence of the appellant who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was fake. The repudiation was legal and valid. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. Avtar Singh appellant filed his affidavit as Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of S.K. Mehta, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.O-1 and the affidavit of Sanjeev First Appeal No.1421 of 2004. 3 Kumar Dhamija, Mechanical Engineer (Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor) as Ex.O-2. The respondents also proved documents Ex.O-3 to Ex.O-12.
7. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 5.10.2004.
8. Hence the appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. The appellant has not placed on the file any document to show if the vehicle was sold by the respondents for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- or if only an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given to the appellant or if the respondents had retained a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with them. On the other hand, the respondents have taken the plea that the entire claim of the appellant was repudiated vide letter dated 16.5.2003 Ex.O-4 as the driving licence of the appellant who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was found to be fake.
12. Photocopy of the driving licence of Avtar Singh appellant has been proved as Ex.C-4 which was issued by DTO, Jalandhar. It was valid upto 25.7.1996. It was renewed by the DTO, Kapurthala on 30.8.1996. Thereafter it was renewed by the DTO, Kapurthala for the period from 10.9.1999 to 23.7.2002 at No.1777/RDL/KPL.
13. The respondents have proved the report of the District Transport Officer, Kapurthala as Ex.O-8, according to which, the driving licence bearing No.1777/RDL.KPT/1999-2000 dated 10.9.1999 was renewed upto 23.7.2002. It's old number was 5315/Jal/26.7.93.
14. The respondents have also placed on the file the report of DTO, Jalandhar dated 25.10.2002 as Ex.O-10, according to which, the licence of Avtar Singh appellant was renewed for the period from 26.7.93 to 25.7.96 but the original number was 3756/Hoshiarpur/89-90.
First Appeal No.1421 of 2004. 4
15. The respondents have also produced on the file the report of DTO, Hoshiarpur dated 21.1.2003 as Ex.O-12 according to which the driving licence No.3756/Hoshiarpur/89-90 was not issued by the DTO, Hoshiarpur to Avtar Singh son of Lashkar Singh. Therefore it proves that the original driving licnece of Avtar Singh son of Lashkar Singh i.e. the present appellant was fake.
16. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut" III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC) in which it was held that a fake driving licence even if renewed validly will not become valid. The same view of law was further adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment reported as "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Saheb Singh" 2009 CTJ 947 (Supreme Court)(CP) that since the driving licence of Saheb Singh appellant was found to be fake, therefore, he is not entitled to compensation.
17. The appellant has also placed another driving licence bearing No.1580/DL dated 30.07.2002 Ex.C-5. This driving licence shall not serve the purpose as it was issued after the date of accident on 23.5.2002.
18. In view of the discussion held above, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
19. The arguments in this case were heard on 14.7.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
July 19 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER
First Appeal No.1421 of 2004. 5