State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Mahaveera Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 4 September, 2018
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017
Date of Institution: 30.11.2017
Order reserved on: 23.08.2018
Date of Decision : 04.09.2018
M/s Mahaveera Transport Pvt. Ltd., C-1/14, Prashant Vihar, Rohini,
New Delhi, through Rajneesh Mishra son of Late Sh. Pramod Kumar
Mishra, resident of Rohini, New Delhi.
.....Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, SCO
127-128, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar through its Senior
Branch Manager/Authorized Officer.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office,
SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its
Regional/Assistant General Manager.
.....Opposite Parties
Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to
date).
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Kiran Sibal, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. S.S. Momi, Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate
.................................................................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The complainant has instituted this complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act") against OPs on the averments that it is a Private Limited Company Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 2 and this complaint has been filed by Rajneesh Mishra, who has been authorized to file it, being an authorized agent of complainant on the basis of resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the complainant company. The complainant purchased a GCV Public Carrier Package Policy, bearing no.1121013114P101770532 from OPs for their vehicle, which was purchased by it from Mahindra Trucks and Buses Ltd. for price of Rs.14,50,000/-, on 02.06.2014, which was operative from 02.06.2014 to 01.06.2014. The complainant incurred the expenses of Rs.3,20,000/- on the body of the vehicle, which was prepared by Zainuddin Fabricator. The vehicle was duly registered with registering authority Rewari and the National Permit for public carrier was for the period from 01.08.2014 to 31.07.2019. On 04.03.2015, the said vehicle was snatched at Tapukra District Alwar by some unknown persons and FIR no.80 dated 08.03.2015 was lodged at Police Station Tapukra District Alwar under Section 394 of IPC in that regard. The insured declared value of above vehicle was Rs.16,63,000/-. The driving licence of the driver was for MTV issued by ARTO Tuensang, Nagaland valid at the time of above snatching. Even in intimation under RTI Act by District Transport Officer Tuensang Nagaland, addressed to complainant, the genuineness of driving licence no.48202/TV/T/2013 of driver was affirmed. The OPs appointed a surveyor in the name of Dynamic Investigator Agent Proprietor Manpreet Singh Lamba, who submitted his report dated 26.08.2016 finding the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in order as verified by RTO Nagaland. The Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 3 OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on 24.05.2017 on the ground of fake driving licence of the driver of the insured vehicle. The complainant sent reply to this repudiation letter. In response thereto, OPs issued another letter dated 09.08.2017 wherein the new ground for repudiation of claim was mentioned that driving licence issued by R.T.O., Nagaland could not be considered as valid document on account of notification dated 01.08.2014 issued by the Government of Nagaland. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has prayed that OPs be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.16,63,000/- as IDV of the above vehicle alongwith interest @12% per annum from 08.03.2015 till the disposal of the complaint; to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental harassment and deficiency in service; to pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses and further prayed for setting aside of Annexure C-10 and C-12 issued by OPs illegally.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint, as the total claim of the complainant is less than the cap of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant is a corporate body, which is not entitled to any compensation for mental harassment, even to interest @12% per annum as claimed in complaint. The amount claimed comes less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, being less than Rs.20,00,000/-. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and instead suppressed the material Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 4 information pertaining to driving licence of driver Shokeen son of Asru Dohli, who drove the vehicle on the date of its alleged loss. The complainant disclosed the particulars of licence of above driver obtained by him from Nagaland, who deliberately withheld the details of driving licence no.RJ02/20120018637 dated 08.11.2012 issued by DTO Alwar Rajasthan. Verification of this driving licence was got done by OPs through investigator and DTO Alwar intimated that driving licence was valid for motorcycle with gear and light motor vehicle only. The complainant deliberately withheld the particulars of this driving licence issued by DTO Alwar, which was not valid for driving Heavy Transport Vehicles. On merits, OPs contended that since the driving licence issued by DTO Alwar to driver of the vehicle at the time of its alleged loss of Shokeen driver was for motorcycle with gear and for light motor vehicle and not for heavy transport vehicle and as such driver Shokeen held no valid driving licence at the time of loss of the vehicle. The OPs have controverted the other averments of complainant by denying any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajneesh Mishra Ex.C-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14(colly) and closed the evidence. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikram Singh,Deputy Manager (Legal) Ex.OP-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 and closed the evidence.
Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 5
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Evidence on the record has also been evaluated by us with able assistance of counsel for the parties. The complainant company tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajnessh Mishra its authorized agent Ex.C-A on the record. This witness testified that complainant company purchased GCV Public Carrier Package Policy, bearing no.1121013114P101770532 from OPs for their vehicle, which was purchased by complainant from Mahindra Trucks and Buses Ltd. for an amount of Rs.14,50,000/-, on 02.06.2014, and the policy was operative from 02.06.2014 to 01.06.2014. It incurred the expenses of Rs.3,20,000/- on the fabrication of the body of the vehicle. The vehicle was duly registered with registering authority Rewari and the National Permit for public carrier was for the period from 01.08.2014 to 31.07.2019 of above vehicle. This witness further deposed that on 04.03.2015, the said vehicle was snatched at Tapukra District Alwar by some unknown miscreants and FIR no.80 dated 08.03.2015 was lodged at Police Station Tapukra District Alwar under Section 394 of IPC in this regard. The insured amount of vehicle was Rs.16,63,000/-. The driving licence of the driver Shokeen was for MTV issued by ARTO Tuensang Nagaland, valid at the time of above snatching. Even in intimation under RTI Act by District Transport Officer Tuensang Nagaland, addressed to complainant, the genuineness of driving licence no.48202/TV/T/2013 of driver Shokeen was affirmed. The complainant lodged the claim with OPs and they appointed a Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 6 surveyor in the name of Dynamic Investigator Agent Proprietor Manpreet Singh Lamba, who submitted his report dated 26.08.2016 finding the driving licence of driver of the vehicle in question in order as verified by RTO Nagaland. This witness further testified that OPs repudiated the insurance claim of complainant illegally and arbitrarily. Ex.C-1 is the copy of retail invoice dated 30.05.2014 for purchase of above vehicle. Ex.C-2 is the copy of insurance policy for the total value of Rs.16,63,000/-, which was valid from 02.06.2014 to 01.06.2015. The body of the vehicle was got prepared from Zainuddin Fabricator by giving an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- on 20.07.2014 by complainant. The said vehicle was duly registered with registering authority vide Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 is the copy of National Permit for public carrier of it. The said vehicle was snatched on 04.03.2015 by some unknown persons and FIR dated 08.03.2015 was lodged at Police Station Tapukra District Alwar under Section 394 IPC. The complainant lodged the insurance claim by submitting the claim form to OPs on 05.03.2015, vide Ex.C-7 on the record. Ex.C-8 is the copy of information dated 22.01.2016 obtained by complainant regarding driving license no.48202/TV/T/2013 of driver of the vehicle Shokeen S/o Asru Dohli from DTO Tuensang, Nagaland and vide this information, the driver Shokeen was authorized to drive motorcycle, LMV, LTV and HTV, which was valid upto 06.11.2017. Ex.C-9 (colly) is the copy of letter dated 26.08.2016 from Dynamic Investigators & Recovery Agent regarding loss of the above vehicle to Divisional Manager of OPs alongwith theft Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 7 investigation report of loss of vehicle no.HR 74C 7544. Ex.C-10 is copy of repudiation letter dated 24.05.2017 issued by OPs to complainant repudiating its claim on account of fake licence of driver Shokeen. The complainant wrote letter dated 02.06.2017 to OPs in reply to letter dated 24.05.2007 to the effect that driving licence was issued by RTO Nagaland which is valid and effective and complainant also attached online verification with this letter. In reply thereto, the OPs again repudiated the claim of the complainant on another ground that there is breach of policy condition with regard to holding of a valid driving licence. The alleged driving licence issued by RTO Nagaland cannot be considered a valid document on account of notification dated 01.08.2014 issued by the Government of Nagaland as well as on account of Section 6 read with Section 182(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, vide Ex.C-12. Ex.C-13 is the copy of letter under Right to Information Act to OPs by complainant.
5. To counter this evidence of complainant, OPs tendered in evidence the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-1. Ex.OP-2 is the claim form lodged by complainant. Ex.OP-3 is the copy of motor claim form-commercial vehicle and Ex.OP-4 is the extract of driving licence of Shokeen Driver issued by RTO of Alwar. Ex.OP-5 is the intimation given by District Transport Officer Alwar under RTI Act to the effect that Shokeen S/o Asru Dohli held driving licence for motorcycle with gear and light motor vehicle only from 08.11.2012 to 07.11.2032. Ex.OP-6 is the photostat copy of the driving licence issued by District Transport Officer Nagaland. Ex/OP-7 is the copy of Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 8 letter for obtaining information under RTI Act dated 08.01.2017 addressed to DTO, Tuensang, Nagaland. Ex.OP-8 is copy of information provided by DTO, Tuensang, Nagaland dated 30.01.2017 regarding driving licence no.48202/TV/T/2013. OP-9 is the letter from OP to Motor Tech. Deptt. Regional Office, Chandigarh with regard to verification report of DL no.48202/TV/T/2013 of Mr. Shokeen S/o Asru. Ex.OP-10 is the copy of letter dated 19.05.2017 by Transport Commissioner to OP to the effect that the last date for conversion of old driving licenses in the booklet to smart card in the State was 01.12.2014. Ex.OP-11 is the copy of information provided under RTI Act to complainant by DTO Tuensang Nagaland with the remarks that driving licence no.48202/TV/T/2013 would be treated as cancelled, as it has not been converted to a smart card format. Ex.OP-12 is the copy of letter for supplying the information under RTI Act dated 21.04.2017. Ex.OP-13 is the copy of information provided to Shri Sanjeev. Ex.OP-14 is the copy of appeal for not supplying the requisite information regarding DL no.48202/TV/T/2013 dated 07.10.2013. Vide Ex.OP-15 letter dated 17.11.2017, DTO, Tuensang Nagaland to the effect that old driving license no.48202/TV/T/2013 and driving license no.NL- 0320130007067 was cancelled by the undersigned office w.e.f. 25.09.2017 in exercise of the authority conferred under Section 19(1)(e) of the M.V. Act 1988. Vikram Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal) of OPs tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-A in support of averments of OPs.
Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 9
6. The forceful contention of the OPs is that driver Shokeen of the insured vehicle at the time of its snatching was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and as such there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The counsel for OPs relied upon the letters issued by District Transport Officer Tuensang Nagaland to the effect that alleged driving licence of Shokeen was not converted to a smart card format and as such it stood cancelled vide Ex.OP-11 dated 22.01.2016. It was further contended by Sh. B.S. Taunque counsel for OPs that Shokeen, the alleged driver of the insured vehicle was holding two driving licences, one issued by Alwar Licensing Authority and second by Tuensang Nagaland Licensing Authority, as such he had violated the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in this regard. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant contended that in letter Ex.OP-11 dated 22.01.2016, it is nowhere stated as to from which dated and effect of time, the licence was considered to be cancelled by DTO Tuensang Nagaland. The counsel for complainant contended that letter Ex.OP-11 is dated 22.01.2016, whereas the incident took place in the year 2015 prior thereto. Counsel for complainant also drew our attention to letter dated 30.01.2017 part of Ex.C-9 (colly) issued by DTO Tuensand, Nagaland addressed to Davinder Sharma regarding verification of driving license no.48202/TV/T/2013 of alleged driver to the effect that from the office report, the driving licence of Shokeen was converted to digital format of smart card No.NL-0320130007067 on 29.03.2016, as per the Government of Nagaland, Transport Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 10 Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima's order and to letter dated 17.11.2017 Ex.OP-15 on the file written by DTO, Tuensang Nagaland to Shokeen bearing DL no.48202/TV/T/2013 to the effect that old driving license no.48202/TV/T/2013 and driving license no.NL-0320130007067 were cancelled by the undersigned office w.e.f. 25.09.2017, whereas the incident took place in the year 2015 and as such we are of the view that the driving licence of Shokeen alleged driver was valid at the time of driving the heavy transport vehicle (HTV), when it was snatched. The letter Ex.OP-11, thus, stood nullified because this driving licence was valid at the time of above incident of snatching in the year 2015. Now, the question is as to what is the effect of holding the other driving licence issued by DTO Alwar to Shokeen driver. The vehicle in this case was a Heavy Transport Vehicle and the driving licence issued by DTO Alwar is not for HTV and driving licence issued by DTO Alwar is not a valid driving licence for plying the Heavy Transport Vehicle. Consequently, the repudiation of the claim of complainant twice on different grounds one that driving licence was fake vide Ex.C-10 and second one that driving licence issued by RTO Nagaland was not valid vide Ex.C-12 are unauthorized.
7. The counsel for OPs further contended that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint. It is contended that complainant claimed the amount of Rs.16,63,000/- as insured declared value in the claim from the with interest @12% per annum from 08.03.2015 till disposal of the complaint and further prayed for Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 11 Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, deficiency in service, deceptive/restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice and Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation. The counsel for OPs argued that the compensation for mental harassment cannot be awarded by this Commission, as held by the Apex Court in "Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & others"
2009(III)CPJ-90. We find that complainant claimed the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for restrictive trade practice, deceptive trade practice and deficiency in service as well. As per the mandate of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the value of the services or goods and compensation, if any claimed therefor has to be considered for ascertaining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The averments in the complaint have to be looked into for ascertaining whether this Forum has the requisite jurisdiction to try the matter or not. The reliance of OPs on law laid down by the National Commission in "Guranna, Etc. Vs. Jeetendra and another"
2013(I)CPJ-249 is not applicable to the controversy in the case. Consequently, the complainant cannot be estopped from claiming compensation and it is a different matter whether the relief of compensation is awarded to complainant by this Forum or not after appreciating the evidence on the record. It is, thus, held that this Forum has requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to try the complaint.
8. As a result of our above discussion, the complaint of complainant is accepted and OPs are directed to pay the insured declared value of the insured vehicle of Rs.16,63,000/- to the Consumer Complaint No.1041 of 2017 12 complainant with interest @8% per annum thereon from 08.03.2015 till 04.09.2018, the date of disposal of the complaint, as claimed by complainant in relief clause with regard to awarding of interest. No compensation for mental harassment can be awarded, as complainant is a juristic person being a private limited company and is not a natural person. However, we award the amount of Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. These amounts shall be payable by OPs to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
9. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 23.08.2018 and the order was reserved. The certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties, as per rules.
10. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 04, 2018.
(MM)