State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Vtc (Verma Transport Company) ... vs 1. National Insurance Company Limited on 9 April, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 125 of 2013 Date of Institution : 26.03.2013 Date of Decision : 09.04.2013 M/s VTC (Verma Transport Company) Transport Company Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Jai Kishan, Railway Road, Village Darua, Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. National Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO 85-86, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, through its Manager, 3 Middletor Street, Post Box No. 9229, Kolkata- 700071. ....Respondent/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Maninder, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.02.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of truck, bearing Registration No. CH-04-J-8151, make LPS 4018, Chassis No. MAT447205-93F-05715, Engine No. 90F62763728, and manufactured in July 2009, got the same insured, from the Opposite Parties, for the period from 03.07.2009 to 02.07.2010, vide insurance cover note Annexure C-2, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.13,94,695/-. During the currency of the Policy, the said truck met with an accident, on 23.12.2009, at around 11:45 PM, and was damaged to a great extent. F.I.R. No. 91 dated 24.12.2009, was lodged in Police Station. Kathghad, District Bilaspur, (H.P.), against the driver of the truck (Shiv Shankar Koiri) and his license was taken, in possession by the Police. It was stated that that the truck was got repaired from M/s Pasco Motors, Chandigarh, and payment of Rs.5,33,243/- , vide Annexure C-4, on account of repair of the said truck, was made by the Complainant Company. However, when the claim for reimbursement of the said amount, was submitted by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, they refused to make the payment of the same. It was further stated that the driver of the truck, aforesaid, was holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time, when it (truck) met with an accident. It was further stated that the licence of the said driver was also got verified, by the Opposite Parties, as per letter dated 09.07.2010, issued by Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate/Investigator, Gorakhpur, which was found to be valid. It was further stated that when the Opposite Parties failed to settle the claim of the complainant, despite a lapse of almost about 1 years, a legal notice dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure C-6) was served upon the Opposite Parties, in reply whereto, they (Opposite Parties), vide letter dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure C-7), intimated about the rejection of the claim of the complainant, on the ground, that the driving licence of the driver, at the relevant time, when the vehicle met with an accident, which was found to be genuine, was not given to them, alongwith the claim form, and rather another licence, in the name of Shankar Singh was given, to them, which was found to have not been issued by the Competent Authority. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to reimburse the entire amount of the bill Annexure C-4, incurred towards the repairs of the said vehicle; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-
3. The Opposite Parties, in their joint version, admitted that the complainant, being the owner of truck, bearing Registration No. CH-04-J-8151, make LPS 4018, Chassis No. MAT447205-93F-05715, Engine No. 90F62763728, got the same insured, from the Opposite Parties, for the period from 03.07.2009 to 02.07.2010, vide insurance cover note Annexure C-2, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.13,94,695/-. Damage to the vehicle and lodging of F.I.R. aforesaid, was also admitted. It was denied that the driving licence of the driver - Shiv Shankar Koiri, was taken into possession by the Police. It was, however, stated that the Director of the complainant Company filed the claim, under the terms and conditions of the Policy, and submitted Motor Claim Form dated 26.02.2010, wherein, the name of the driver, at the time of accident was mentioned as Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, having driving licence No. 1324/2003/Ballia issued by the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Ballia. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, sent the said driving licence, for verification. As per report made by the office of the ARTO, Ballia, dated 08.04.2010 Annexure R-2, the said licence was not issued by their office. It was further stated that this fact was duly intimated, to the complainant, vide letter dated 10.5.2010, in response whereto, letters dated 21.05.2010 and 16.6.2010, were received from him (complainant), alongwith which, another driving licence No. 307/0R/SKN/04 of one Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri, issued by the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Kabir Nagar, was submitted. It was further stated that, in response to the same, Opposite Party No.1, vide letter dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure R-4), informed the complainant Company that the second driving licence produced by it, could not be considered, for the admissibility of claim, in question. It was further stated that, ultimately, it was concluded by the Opposite Parties, that, at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by a person, who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It was further stated that the complainant was given seven days notice, before the repudiation of claim. It was further stated that, since, at the time of accident, the driver, who was driving the vehicle, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, and, as such, the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as also the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was further stated that, thus, the repudiation of claim of the complainant was legal and valid. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, in fact, at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri, driver. He further submitted that even, the name of this driver was mentioned, in the F.I.R., which was lodged, immediately, after the accident. He further submitted that the vehicle was not being driven by Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, driver, whose name was mentioned in the claim form Annexure R-1. He further submitted that the name of a wrong driver was mentioned, in the claim form. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, it was required of the Opposite Parties, to consider the validity of the driving licence of Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri, driver, which was found to be genuine, by their Surveyor/Loss Assessor/Evaluer. He further submitted that, as such, the repudiation of claim of the complainant, was completely illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
9. Undisputedly, the complainant being the owner of the truck, bearing Registration No. CH-04-J-8151, make LPS 4018, Chassis No. MAT447205-93F-05715, Engine No. 90F62763728, got the same insured, from the Opposite Parties, for the period from 03.07.2009 to 02.07.2010, vide insurance cover note Annexure C-2, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.13,94,695/-. There is also, no dispute, between the Parties, about the factum, that the said truck met with an accident, during the currency of the Insurance Policy. The question arises, as to who was the driver, driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident. Admittedly, the Director of the complainant filed the claim form Annexure R-1, with the Opposite Parties, after the occurrence of the said accident. The name of the driver, in this claim form was written as Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, aged about 33 years, resident of Betori, Ballia. It was also mentioned, in the claim form, that Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, had been working with the complainant, for the last about two years. The driving licence number 1324/2003/Ballia, of this driver was also mentioned, in the claim form. Not only this, even the name of the Issuing Authority i.e. Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Ballia, which issued this Driving Licence, was also mentioned, in the said claim form. Against the column, description of the accident, it was in clear-cut terms stated that, on 22.12.2009, Sh. Shankar Singh, driver, loaded Sariya (steel bars), in the vehicle, in question, at Chandigarh, and was going to Koaldam, Sunder Nagar (H.P), alongwith co-driver Sunil Kumar. On 23.12.2009, at about 11.45 P.M., when they reached near Shiv Mandir, Vill. Baner, Swarghat-Sunder Nagar Road, Shankar Singh, driver, lost control of the vehicle, as a result whereof, the front and left side of the same, struck against another truck No.HP24A-5121 and two bulker vehicles, coming from the opposite side, resulting into severe damage to the same (truck in question). The Driving Licence of the driver, which was mentioned in the claim form, was got verified from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Ballia and his office gave the report Annexure R-2, to the effect, that Driving Licence bearing number 1324/2003/Ballia, had not been issued by their office. This fact was duly intimated to the complainant. Not only this, even the Surveyor/Loss Assessor/Evaluer, during the course of Survey, also came to the conclusion that Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, was the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident. Since, Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, whose name was mentioned as driver, in the aforesaid claim form Annexure R-1, had been found to be not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence, at the time of accident, there was certainly breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as also of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
Under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties, legally and validly, repudiated the claim of the complainant, on the ground, that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the Opposite Parties, could not be said to be deficient, in rendering service.
10. No doubt, in copy of the FIR, the name of the drive was written as Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri. In case, in the claim form, the name of the driver was wrongly mentioned, by the insured, as Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, it could immediately, after filing the same, intimate the Opposite Parties, with regard to the commission of such a mistake. At the same time, the complainant could intimate the Opposite Parties, that, in fact, the name of the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant time, was Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri, but inadvertently, the name of Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, was written in the claim form. No such, effort was made by the complainant/insured. Even, in the complaint, not even a fleeting reference, was made by the complainant, that the name of Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, as driver of the vehicle, was wrongly written in the claim form. After the verification of Driving Licence of Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, driver, by the Opposite Parties, when it was found that the same was fake, due intimation was given to the complainant. It was only after such intimation, having been given to the complainant, that Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence, and, as such, it was not entitled to any claim, that it came up with the plea that infact the truck was being driven by Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri, and his licence be got verified. Such a plea, on the part of the complainant, could certainly be said to be an afterthought. No reason was assigned by the complainant, as to why, the name of Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, was mentioned as driver, in the claim form, which was submitted after about two months of the accident. If, Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri, was actually driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, no reason was also assigned by the complainant, as to why, then the licence of Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, was furnished to the Opposite Parties, for getting the genuineness and validity, verified from the concerned Licensing Authority. It is, thus, not known, as to, under what circumstances, the name of Shiv Shankar Koiri s/o Rama Prasad Koiri, was mentioned in the FIR. The contents of the claim form, which were mentioned by the insured and the investigation conducted by the Surveyor, clearly proved that it was Shankar Singh s/o Ram Prakash Singh, who was driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, and that he was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence, at that time. The claim form, duly signed by the Director of the complainant, and submitted by him, as also the survey report, after due investigation, submitted by the Surveyor/Loss Assessor/Evaluer, certainly have got precedence over the FIR. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, thus, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
April 9, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg