State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balbir Singh vs National Insurance Co. on 13 March, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 277 of 2017 Date of Institution: 09.03.2017 Date of Decision : 13.03.2018 Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Banarsi Dass, Resident of Village Hatlana, Nissing, District Karnal. Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Divisional Manager. 2. National Insurance Company Limited Registered Office 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata through its Divisional Manager. Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate proxy on behalf of Mrs. Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondents.
O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This complainant's appeal is directed against the order dated November 23rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short 'the District Forum') whereby complaint was dismissed.
2. Balbir Singh - complainant (appellant herein) registered owner of Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.HR-05X-2824 got his vehicle insured with National Insurance Company Limited - Opposite Parties (for short 'the Insurance Company') vide insurance policy cover note No.4142100 (Annexure C-1) regarding the period from May 07th, 2008 up to May 06th, 2009 mentioning Insured Declared Value (IDV) as Rs2,52,790/-. On 12th April, 2009 the above mentioned car vehicle was being driven by Kuljeet driver and on his way to Karnal, the car vehicle met with an accident near Village Khanpur at about 10:30 A.M. The accident took place when Kuljeet Singh tried to save a buffalo on the road and in this process the car vehicle struck against a eucalyptus tree. The car vehicle was badly damaged which was shifted to M/s Sonu Motor Auto Gas, Buria Chowk, Jagadhri for repair on the same date. The car vehicle was got repaired. The complainant immediately submitted his insurance claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. The Insurance Company vide letter dated 03rd May, 2010 repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant.
3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to withdraw the repudiation letter dated 03rd May, 2010; to pay the total insurance claim submitted by the complainant; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
4. The opposite parties have taken plea in their written version that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that Kuljeet driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car vehicle; that the complainant did not inform the Police regarding this accident; that the complainant caused un-necessary delay in giving information to the opposite parties regarding this accident and that the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint. It is pleaded that the accident took place on 12th April, 2009 but information was given to the Insurance Company on 17th April, 2009 after five days. After receiving information Mr. R.S. Arora, Automobile Engineer was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor by the opposite parties who submitted his report on 25th November, 2009 (Annexure R-4) mentioning total loss caused as Rs.1,67,290/-.
5. Regarding fact finding report Shri A.S. Vaish, Senior Field Officer (Retd.) (RAW) was appointed who submitted his report on 26th August, 2009 (Annexure R-6) mentioning that in fact the car vehicle was being driven by Gajinder alias Chottu at the time of accident and the car vehicle had already been purchased by Gulshan from Balbir Singh. The opposite parties also got verification of the driving licence of Kuljeet through Shri Sanjay Kumar Rawal who submitted his report on 19th May, 2009 (Annexure R-8). In his report and report from licensing authority, it is mentioned that Kuljeet was not having a valid driving licence to drive a car vehicle. In this way, the complainant has misrepresented the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is not entitled to receive any amount as claimed in the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.
6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.
7. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 23rd November, 2016 complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
8. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2016 the complainant has filed the present First Appeal No.277 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to accept the complaint filed by the complainant granting relief as prayed in the complaint.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant is the registered owner of Alto car vehicle bearing registration No.HR-05X-2824 and the car vehicle was got insured by the complainant with the Insurance Company-Opposite Parties vide insurance policy cover note No.4142100 (Annexure C-1) regarding the period from May 07th, 2008 up to May 06th, 2009 mentioning total Insured Declared Value as Rs.2,52,790/-. There appears to be no controversy in this regard also that the car vehicle met with an accident on 12th April, 2009 during the insurance period. It stands proved that Kuljeet Singh driver was driving the car vehicle and the accident took place when he tried to save a buffalo on the main road and car vehicle struck with a tree and was badly damaged.
11. The opposite parties have also taken plea that the car vehicle had been purchased from complainant Balbir Singh by Gulshan but the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence to prove that Gulshan had purchased the car vehicle. In this way, findings can be safely given that the complainant Balbir Singh was the registered owner of the car vehicle at the time of accident. After receiving information regarding the accident on 17th April, 2009, the Insurance Company appointed Shri R.S. Arora, Automobile Engineer, Valuer, Surveyor who submitted his report Annexure R/4 and assessed the total loss caused to the vehicle as Rs.1,67,290/- after deducting salvage value and depreciation etc. The Insurance Company also appointed Shri A.S. Vaish, Senior Field Officer (Retd.( RAW) as investigator who submitted his report Annexure R-6 and gave his opinion that at the time of accident Gajinder alias Chhotu was driving the car vehicle or that the car vehicle was purchased by Gulshan. In this case, no FIR was lodged by the complainant or Kuljeet Singh driver after the accident and information was given to the Insurance Company by submitting insurance claim on 17th April, 2009 after five days from the date of accident.
12. The insurance claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 03rd May, 2010 (Annexure R-1) mainly on the ground that the complainant did not lodge FIR, caused delay in giving information to the Insurance Company regarding accident and that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In our view, repudiation of the insurance claim submitted by the complainant was not justified on the ground of causing 5 days delay in giving information to the Insurance Company, more particularly, when the vehicle was being driven by the driver and the complainant registered owner was not travelling in the vehicle. Moreover, it cannot be expected from owner of the vehicle to immediately rush to the Insurance Company to submit his insurance claim soon after the accident. In the beginning, the registered owner is supposed to take steps to bring the vehicle to the workshop for repair work and to take opinion from the mechanic/expert engineer as to whether it was a case of total loss or that the vehicle was repairable or that how much amount was likely to be spent for repair of the vehicle.
13. Apart from it, the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA), which control and regulates the Insurance Companies, issued direction not to reject the genuine claims simply because of delay in registration of FIR and intimation to the Insurance Company. In the instructions of the IRDA it was mentioned that claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances. The insurer's decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. Support to this view can be taken from the case law cited as Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited vs. Ms. Monu Yadav and another, 2014(4) PLR 861, decided by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Cited case law above fully supports the version of the complainant.
14. Although, repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground of causing delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company was not justified but findings are required to be given as to whether Kuljeet was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident or not? We feel in case findings are given that Kuljeet was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, certainly the complainant can be awarded total amount of Rs.1,67,290/- as per assessment made by the surveyor for repair of the vehicle.
15. The driving licence in the name of the complainant which has been tendered in evidence as Annexure C-3 was issued by the Licensing Authority, Narnaul regarding the period from 08th July, 1994 up to 05th December, 2014. Photo copy of the driving licence (Annexure C-3) has been placed on the file and there are tick marks from column A to F which may show that Kuljeet Singh was authorised to drive motor car, tractor, Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Goods Vehicles, Medium Passenger Motor Vehicles as well as Motor Cycle and scooter. The driving licence issued to the complainant was also got verified by the opposite parties from the licensing authority, Narnaul through Sanjay Kumar Rawal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. Shri Sanjay Kumar Rawal in his report Annexure R-8 has mentioned that as per record available with the Licensing Authority, Narnaul, Kuljeet s/o Sh. Janeshwar Singh was authorised to drive only motor cycle and scooter vehicle. Report of the Licensing Authority, Narnaul dated 19th May, 2009 (Annexure R-9) is also like this.
16. In order to clear doubts of any type, the learned District Forum summoned Licensing Clerk, Licensing Authority, Narnaul along with official record who appeared in the witness box as CW-1 and recorded his statement on 15th April, 2014. Shri Ganender Kumar, Licensing Clerk, in his cross-examination admitted in clear words that the driving license No.11429 dated 08th July, 2014 was issued in the name of Kuljeet authorizing him to drive scooter and motor cycle vehicle. As per this driving licence, Kuljeet cannot drive any other vehicle. In his examination-in-chief Ganender Kumar stated that as per entries in Annexure C-3, the driver can drive car, jeep also. Licensing Clerk has stated like this because in the photo copy Annexure C-3 there are tick marks on the columns of driving car, jeep also. In this way, it clearly appears that the complainant placed on the file photo copy of his driving licence by tick marks on the category of tractor, car jeep vehicle also. In fact, as per record maintained in the office of licensing authority, Narnaul, Kuljeet was authorised to drive only motor cycle and scooter. In this way, findings can be safely given that Kuljeet driver was not authorised to drive car vehicle at the time of accident. The repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant on this ground appears to be justified. This view finds support from a decision of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the National Commission') in case National Insurance Company Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar, 2013(4) C.P.J. 1 and a decision of the Punjab State Consumer Commission in National Insurance Company Limited versus Aman Rana, 2013(4) C.P.J.125. As per facts of case law referred above, drivers of the vehicles were not having driving licence to drive car and in the above mentioned two cases, the complaints filed by the complainants were dismissed as the drivers were not having valid driving licenses to drive car vehicle.
17. Apart from it, as per view of the Hon'ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Ladu Kishore Sahu, 2003(3) C.P.J. 99, the repudiation of the insurance claim was justified as driver of the vehicle was not authorized to drive taxi vehicle and in that case taxi vehicle was involved in the accident.
18. On the other side learned counsel for the complainant argued that burden was upon the Insurance Company to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car vehicle and in support of his this contention reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case law Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Chief Manager versus Rajnesh Tandon, 2014(2) C.P.J. 148 and a decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case law Lalchand versus Kanta, 1992 ACJ 469.
19. We have closely perused the above cited case laws and found that both the case laws referred above are of no help to the complainant in this case because the Insurance Company has been able to lead convincing evidence to prove that Kuljeet-driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car vehicle. The Insurance Company has adduced in evidence report of the licensing authority and also examined licensing clerk with the relevant record.
20. As per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in giving findings that Kuljeet-driver was not authorised to drive a car vehicle and the driving licence was provided to him only to drive motor cycle or scooter vehicles. Thus on this ground the repudiation of complainant's claim by the Insurance Company was justified.
21. As a result as per discussions above in detail, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated November 23rd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Announced:
13.03.2018 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL