State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Darshan Singh Brar vs The Oriental Insurance Company ... on 14 February, 2013
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.944 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 01.09.2008.
Date of Decision: 14.02.2013.
Darshan Singh Brar S/o Sh. Gulzar Singh, R/o Village Deep Singh Wala,
District Faridkot.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bank Bazar, Bathinda,
through its Divisional Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jaitu through its Branch
Manager.
3. Tata Motor Finance Services Limited, SCF No.133, opposite Rose
Garden, Improvement Shopping Complex, Bathinda, through its
Manager.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
15.07.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for Sh. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the respondents.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Darshan Singh Brar, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 15.07.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "the District Forum").First Appeal No.944 of 2008 2
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereafter called 'the respondents'), alleging that he is owner of truck bearing registration no.PB-04-K-8115, Model 2006 and the same was hypothecated with respondent no.3, who financed the same. Truck No.RJ-31-G-4268 was comprehensively insured with respondents no.1 & 2 vide cover note no.760517 dated 26.10.2006. Respondents no.1 & 2 did not supply any policy against the said cover note.
3. The vehicle met with an accident on10.07.2007 in the revenue limits of P.S. Zira and the truck no.PB-04-K-8115 was totally damaged and DDR No.27 dated 10.07.2007 was lodged at P.S. Zira. The driver Jagjeet Singh was seriously injured in the said accident. After recovery from the injuries, said driver did not turn up but he gave photocopy of his driving licence no.PB-30-204/NDL/07-08 valid from 10.05.2006 to 09.05.2009. Intimation of the accident was immediately given to the office of respondents no.1 & 2 and respondent no.1 deputed Sh. Ashok Bansal, Surveyor, who conducted the survey at the spot and then respondents no.1 & 2 deputed Sh. R.P. Gupta, surveyor to give final report. After the sport survey, the vehicle was shifted to Moga by the appellant under instructions of respondents no.1 & 2 and under the instructions of the final surveyor, the vehicle was got repaired and appellant spent more than Rs.6.00 lacs for the repair of the truck. The original bills were submitted to respondents no.1 & 2 through the final surveyor. The final surveyor at the time of survey obtained the signatures of the appellant on 5-6 blank papers, blank vouchers, consent forms, full and final voucher and assured that the full claim will be paid immediately after receiving the bills. The surveyor never sent any spot survey report and final survey report to the appellant. On inquiry, respondents no.1 & 2 did not give any satisfactory reply and ultimately, no claim was paid. Non-settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency in service and caused lot of pain, agony and harassment to the appellant.
First Appeal No.944 of 2008 3
4. It was prayed that respondents no.1 & 2 may be directed to pay the loss amount of Rs.6.00 lacs along with interest @ 18% p.a., Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. In the written version filed on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2, preliminary objections were raised that no cause of action has arisen and the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. As per the report of the D.T.O, Faridkot, the driving licence of the driver was not valid and said Jagjeet Singh was not holding a valid driving licence as it was fake and the claim was not payable. The District Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint has been filed only to harass the respondents. The appellant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.
6. On merits, it was admitted that the insurance policy was issued by respondent no.2 which was valid from 26.10.2006 to 25.10.2007. The claim was repudiated. It was admitted that the accident took place within the limits of P.S. Zira. The truck in question suffered minor loss and was repairable. The driving licence was found fake and forged. Sport surveyor Sh. Ashok Bansal was appointed and he gave the report and thereafter final surveyor Sh. R.P. Gupta was appointed. The surveyor is an independent person and is not under the respondents. The appellant never cooperated with the respondents nor supplied the requisite information and the required documents. No bills were submitted. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.3, in the preliminary objections, it was submitted that the contract of insurance is between the appellant and respondent no.1 and the policy is subject to IMT Endorsement No.55. In case of total loss, the claim is to be paid to the answering respondent. The appellant has authorized the answering respondent to receive the claim amount from the insurance company under the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Guarantee Agreement. The appellant is not First Appeal No.944 of 2008 4 entitled to any relief which is barred under section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The answering respondent is only a performa party.
8. On merits, similar pleas as taken in the preliminary objections were repeated and it was further submitted that under the agreement, a sum of Rs.12.40 lacs was financed to the appellant and the same was to be repaid in 47 installments and out of the total contract value of Rs.15,05,363/-, the appellant has only paid Rs.5,12,935 and still Rs.9,92,428/- is outstanding against the appellant. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that claim amount under the policy, if ordered, may please be directed in favour of the answering respondent.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
10. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the appellant has tried to set up a case that Jagjeet Singh driver of the truck at the time of accident was possessing two licenses. When Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh,R/o Village Nizzar and Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh R/o Bhullar, District Muktsar cannot be concluded to be one and the same person, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The respondents got the verification of the driving licence done and as per the verification report given by the District Transport Officer, Faridkot Ex.R-5, the number of old driving licence in the name of Jagjeet Singh s/o Kharak Singh, R/o Faridkot i.e. No.1853/FDK/8753/K has not been entered in the record and this driving licence is fake. However, as per endorsement no.1355/RDL, this licence has been issued in the name of Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Faridkot for the period 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2008 and it is valid for HTV. Even as per verification report Ex.R-5, Jagjeet Singh S/o Kharak Singh is resident of Faridkot and not of village Nizzar. Moreover, his old licence on which endorsement no.1355/RDK has been made and thereafter the licence has been renewed for the period First Appeal No.944 of 2008 5 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2008 was fake. Once the licence is fake, the renewal thereof cannot take away the effect of its being fake. The respondents are justified in repudiating the claim. Reliance was placed on "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prithvi Raj", 2008 CTJ-216(Supreme Court) and the complaint was dismissed.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.07.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.
12. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The material question to be determined in the present case is whether Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Village Nizzar and Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Village Bhullar, District Muktsar are two different persons and at the time of accident, who out of them was driving the vehicle in question on 10.07.2007?
14. The first document is DDR No.27 dated 20.07.2007 Ex.C-5 which was recorded immediately after the accident and in this DDR, it was mentioned that in the trolla bearing no.PB-04-K-8115, Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Nizzar, P.S. Guruharsahai was working as driver. He was sitting besides the seat of the driver and due to coming of the stray cattle suddenly in front of the trolla, the accident occurred. Ex.C-35 is the letter written by the Investigator dated 16.12.2007 to District Transport Officer, Faridkot for verification of driving licence no.1355/R/8753/1853-FDK issued to Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh, which was for LTV/HTV valid from 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2008 and it was certified by the District Transport Officer, Faridkot that the entry no.1355 is in the name of Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh from 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2008 (HTV). This is as per renew. Letter Ex.C-36 was written by Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Village Bhullar, District Muktsar for verification of driving licence no.PB-30:204/NDL/07-08 and this licence was valid upto 9.05.2009 as per report of the District Transport Officer, First Appeal No.944 of 2008 6 Muktsar. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor of the respondent insurance company wrote a letter Ex.R-4 to the Branch Manager of the respondent insurance company, mentioning that he visited the office of the District Transport Officer, Faridkot, but the concerned clerk of the District Transport Office was on leave and he verified the record and as per the record, the said driving licence is fake. The said Surveyor and Loss Assessor again wrote another letter Ex.R-5 to District Transport Officer, Faridkot for verification of the licence no.1355/RDL/1853/FDK valid from 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2008 and it was reported that driving licence no.1355/RDL has been issued in the name of Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Faridkot and is valid from 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2008 and old no. 1853/FDK/8753/K is not entered in the record and is wrong.
15. The respondent insurance company has tried to hoodwink the issue and even succeeded in misleading the District Forum. Firstly, Devinder Singh Sandhu, Surveyor and Loss Assessor vide letter Ex.R-4 himself gave the opinion that the driving licence is fake and then he wrote another letter to District Transport Officer, Faridkot and gave number1355/RDL/1853/FDK and got recorded that old no.1853/FDK/8753/K is not entered in the record. The driver has produced the driving licence Ex.C-4 bearing no.PB-30:204/NDL/07- 08 which was issued on 10.05.2006 and was valid from 10.05.2006 to 09.05.2009. As per Ex.C-35 relied upon by the appellant, the licence no.was 1355/R/8753/1853/FDK for LTV/HTV, valid from 21.06.2005 to 20.06.2008 and as per record of the District Transport Officer, it was renewed by the District Transport Officer, Faridkot.
16. From the above discussion and the documents on record, it is clear that driver Jagjit Singh was holding two driving licenses. Ex.C-4 was issued by Licensing Authority, Muktsar and the particulars of the licence given in Ex.C-35 show that the same was renewed by the District Transport Officer, Faridkot. The verification of licence Ex.C-4 was also got conducted vide Ex.C36 by Jagjit Singh S/o Kharak Singh, R/o Bhullar. Thus, the driver Jagjit First Appeal No.944 of 2008 7 Singh was in possession of two driving licenses and one of them was only renewed and its original was found fake. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "Jai Parkash Goyal Vs United India Insurance Company Limited", II(2010) CPJ-183(NC), held that in case the driver is holding two driving licenses, this amounts to violation of the policy conditions and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss. In the present case also, the driver Jagjit Singh was holding two driving licenses and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in above authority, the respondent Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the loss.
17. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 15.07.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 01.02.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member February 14, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)