State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Samandeep Singh on 24 November, 2017
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.563 of 2017
Date of Institution : 26.07.2017
Order Reserved on: 21.11.2017
Date of Decision : 24.11.2017
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bus Stand Road, Hoshiarpur,
through its Manager at Regional Office, S.C.O. No.36-37, Sector 17-
A, Chandigarh.
.....Appellant/opposite party
Versus
Sh. Samandeep Singh S/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh, R/o V.P.O. Patti,
Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.
.....Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against order dated
02.06.2017 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Hoshiarpur.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. P.S. Bedi, Advocate
For the respondent : Ex-parte
............................................ J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
Challenge in this appeal by appellants is to order dated
02.06.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Hoshiarpur (in short the 'District Forum'), directing appellants to pay the amount of Rs.3,08,000/- as repair charges alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of insurance claim till realization; further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Respondent of this appeal is complainant in the complaint before the District Forum and appellant First Appeal No.563 of 2017 2 of this appeal is opposite party (OP) therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the same of convenience.
2. The complainant filed complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP on the averments that he was owner of vehicle bearing No.PB-07-AC-0286, Ashoka Leyland-1212 and it was insured with OP vide policy no. 36080031140l00009231 for the period of 10-09-2014 to 09-09-2015. Unfortunately, on 13-05-2015, the above vehicle, while in use, fell off the road due to sudden burst of its tyre and was damaged therein. The intimation of loss to vehicle was given to OP immediately and it appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss to the vehicle. The complainant got repaired the vehicle and spent Rs.3,80,000/- from his own pocket on the repair of the vehicle and the original bills were submitted to OP by him. OP illegally & falsely repudiated the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 19-03-2016 on the ground that the basic driving license of the driver Sh.Rachhpal Singh son of Ajit Singh was found fake. The complainant had engaged Sh. Rachhpal Singh son of Ajit Singh resident of village & Post office Hoshiarpur, as driver of his vehicle no.PB07-AC-0286, to drive the vehicle after checking his driving skills and verification of his driving license to drive the vehicle in question, which was found to be correct and genuine one. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The vehicle of the complainant was insured for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, whereas the complainant has spent Rs.3,80,000/- on the repair of the vehicle. The complainant prayed that OP be First Appeal No.563 of 2017 3 directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- with 12% interest towards reimbursement of amount spent by him on the repair of above vehicle; and further compensation of Rs.50,000/- toward harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is vague, incomplete regarding material particulars and it does not disclose any cause of action against the replying opposite party. It was further averred that OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as the vehicle number PB-07-AC-0286, allegedly involved in the accident, was being driven by a driver who was not holding a valid driving license to drive the same at the time of accident and claim was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint, which require a lengthy and full-scale trial by recording evidence of many witnesses. The contract of insurance is for indemnifying the insured for the actual loss suffered on account of damage caused to the vehicle. On receiving intimation, OP company deputed M. L. Mehta & Co. Surveyor and Loss Assessors, to assess the loss caused to the vehicle in a road accident. He assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.3,08,149.82 only. So, the amount claimed as compensation is much higher and hyperbolic than the actual loss suffered by the complainant. The complaint was contested even on merits, it was admitted that the complainant is owner of the said vehicle and he First Appeal No.563 of 2017 4 also obtained insurance policy from OP. Rachhpal Singh was driver of the above vehicle at the time of accident. All the renewals of his driving license were got verified by OPs from DTO office Hoshiarpur, wherein it was found that driving licence of Rachhpal Singh was renewed several times by DTO office Hoshiarpur. The said renewals were done on the basis of earlier issuance of driving licence by Licensing Authority Raipur (M.P.) at serial no.9367/88-89, which was valid upto 11.07.1991. The OP obtained verification from Licensing Authority Raipur to the effect that no such driving licence was issued to Rachhpal Singh S/o Ajit Singh. The OP controverted the other averments made in the complaint by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copies of documents Mark C-2 to Mark C-18 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Dalip Kumar, Jr. Assistant, DTO Office, Hoshiarpur Ex.OP-1 and affidavit of Sh. Ashok Jairath Ex.OP-2, affidavit of Sh.M.L.Mehta Ex.OP-3, copy of survey report Mark OP-4, copy of letter dated 19.09.2015 as Ex.OP-5, affidavit of Sukhvinder Singh Notra Ex.OP-6, attested copy of driving license verification report issued by DTO Office, Hoshiarpur Ex.OP-7, attested copy of letter submitted to the insurance company alongwith driving license verification report Ex.OP-8, affidavit of Mohammed Ibrahim Ex.OP-9 and copies of documents Ex.OP-10, Ex.OP11 and Mark OP-12 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District First Appeal No.563 of 2017 5 Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant, as referred to above. Aggrieved by above order, the OP now appellant has directed this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as respondent of this appeal was set exparte and also examined the record of the case. Counsel for the appellant projected in memorandum of appeal that Rachhpal Singh driver did not hold any valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence insurance claim is liable to be repudiated. The counsel for the appellant argued that on verification of original driving licence from Licensing Authority Raipur (MP), it was found that no such driving licence was issued by it. Subsequently renewals of fake original driving licence by DTO Hoshiapur would not validate it, as pressed by the counsel for appellant. It was contended that Mohd. Ebrahim, investigator was deputed by OP now appellant for verification of the genuineness of original driving licence of Rachhpal Singh driver from Licensing Authority Raipur (MP) and it was found that licence no.9367/88-89 was not issued by that Licensing Authority. The forceful submission of counsel for appellant is that if the original driving licence is fake, then its subsequent renewal would not make it a valid one. Subsequent renewal of driving licence cannot cure an inherent fatality of driving licence.
6. We have examined the evidence on the record with able assistance of counsel for appellant in this case because respondent of this appeal has been set exparte. The complainant swore his First Appeal No.563 of 2017 6 affidavit Ex.C-1 on the record to the effect that he got his vehicle insured with OP. The vehicle met with accident on 13.05.2015 and due intimation was given to OP of this accident and OP appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the vehicle. It has further transpired in his statement that he spent Rs.3,80,000/- on repair of the vehicle from his own pocket and his insurance claim has been wrongly repudiated by OP, vide letter dated 19.03.2016. This witness has further deposed that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.7,50,000/-, whereas expenses incurred by him on repair of the vehicle were Rs.3,80,000/-. Ex.C-2 is the copy of Authorization Certificate of N.P. (Goods). Ex.C-3 is the copy of insurance policy. All the expenses incurred by complainant on repair of vehicle are reflected on record vide Ex.C-4 to C-11 in connection with repair of the vehicle from different persons. Ex.C-12 is the copy of repudiation letter. The report of surveyor Tejinder Singh Anand is Ex.C-13 on the record. He made the spot assessment and took the photographs of accidental vehicle and found loss regarding accidental condition of the vehicle. Ex.C-14 is the copy of Motor survey report final by Mehta and Co. dated 09.09.2015 finding the net loss as Rs.3,08,148.82 paise. We have also examined the other documents Ex.C-15 to C-18 on the record. The OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Dalip Kumar, Jr. Assistant of DTO Office Hoshiarpur Ex.OP-1 on the record. It has transpired from his statement that driving licence of Rachhpal Singh was renewed by DTO Hoshiarpur on the basis of his previous renewals. It has transpired in his First Appeal No.563 of 2017 7 statement that renewals of the driving licence were made on the basis of original licence issued at serial no.9367/88-89. Ex.OP-2 is the affidavit of Ashok Jairath, Sr. Divisional Manager of insurance company. This witness stated that no such driving licence was issued by Licensing Authority Raipur (MP) at serial no.9367/88-89 and it was a fake driving licence, as found in investigation by OP. M.L. Mehta Surveyor tendered his affidavit Ex.OP-3 that he assessed the loss of Rs.3,08,000/- to the vehicle and the survey report is Ex.OP-4 and OP-5. The OP mainly relied upon the affidavit of Sukhvinder Singh Notra, surveyor and loss assessor Ex.OP-6 to the effect that renewals of driving licence of Rachhpal Singh was made by DTO office Hoshiarpur on the basis of original driving licence no. 9367/88-89 issued by Licensing Authority Raipur (MP) only and he proved his driving licence verification report Ex.OP-8.
7. The onus is on the insurance company now appellant to prove that no such driving licence no.9367/88-89 was, in fact, issued by Licensing Authority at Raipur (MP) to Rachhpal Singh. The OP relied upon Ex.OP-10, the photostat copy of one report. Licensing Authority Raipur (MP) wrote to Mohd. Ibrahim Investigator that as per their record, driving licence no. 9367/88-89 was not issued to Rachhpal Singh S/o Ajit Singh. This is a vital document on the record, which has been issued by Licensing Authority Raipur (MP) to the investigator appointed by OP for looking into the genuineness of original driving licence of Rachhpal Singh. Ex.OP-10 has thus proved this fact that licence no.9367/88-89 was not issued to First Appeal No.563 of 2017 8 Rachhpal Singh S/o Ajit Singh by Licensing Authority Raipur (MP). This is the official document, as the report has been made by the Licensing Authority Raipur (MP) and cannot be lightly discarded by us. The investigator Mohd. Ibrahim further reported to OP vide Ex.OP-11 that no such driving licence has been issued to Rachhpal Singh S/o Ajit Singh by Licensing Authority Raipur (MP). The OP repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant on the basis of these documents Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 in this case.
8. We have come to the conclusion from perusal of report of Licensing Authority Raipur addressed to Mohd. Ibrahim investigator of OP that licence no.9367/88-89 was not issued to Rachhpal Singh S/o Ajit Singh, the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and Ex.OP-10 is submitted on 16.02.2016 by Licensing Authority Raipur (MP). We have thus come to this conclusion that it is proved by OP that Licensing Authority Raipur (MP) has not issued any such driving licence to Rachhpal Singh S/o Ajit Singh bearing no. 9367/88-89, vide report Ex.OP-10. Subsequent renewal of the original fake driving licence would not make the licence valid and genuine one. It has been so held by the Apex Court in "New India Assurance Co., Shimla Versus Kamla and Ors. (2001 (4) SCC-342 that "once the license is a fake one, the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake license. A fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the M.V. Act, 1988 only empowers any Licensing Authority to "renew a driving licence issued First Appeal No.563 of 2017 9 under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry". No Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine". There is thus, violation of the terms and conditions of the policy justifying the repudiation of contract of insurance on account of fakeness of original driving licence of Rachhpal Singh of Licensing Authority Raipur (MP).
9. As a corollary of our above discussion, we accept exparte appeal of the appellant and we exparte set aside the order of the District Forum Hoshiarpur dated 02.06.2017 by dismissing the complaint of the complainant.
10. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.2,53,200/- in compliance with order of this Commission. These amounts with interest, which accrued thereupon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft.
11. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.11.2017 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
First Appeal No.563 of 2017 10
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER November 24, 2017 MM