Punjab

Patiala

CC/18/481

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh R.S Sodhi

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 481/2018
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2018
Date of Decision	:	5.4.2023

 

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Sh.Nirmal Singh R/o Village Badlai, PO Naya Shahar, Teh. Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., Registered and Head Office at 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkota- 700071 through its Chairman/Director.
2. Branch Manager, M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.,115, Guru Nanak Colony, Rajpura Patiala Punjab Pin 140401.
3. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., Motor claim Hub, DO-1, Link Road, Near Atam Park, Regional Office-Ludhiana.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.R.S.Sodhi, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Alok Mathur, counsel for OPs.            

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Gurpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That complainant is owner of Truck LPT-3118 TC , bearing registration no.PB-11-BN-3945, Model 2014, having chassis No.MAT486422E5H, engine No.41GG84173597 and was insured comprehensively with OPs vide policy No.401402/31/15/6300001690,for the period 28.8.2015 to midnight of 27.8.2016. Complainant paid Rs.33112/- as premium for the said policy to OP No.1.The said vehicle was used by the complainant for earning his livelihood.

3. On 21.10.2015 the truck of the complainant met with an accident at Tepla Road, Patiala when the same was driven by the brother of complainant namely Harpreet Singh son of Nirmal Singh, who was having driving licence No.20742/Mon/Prof/2001 issued by DTO Mon Nagaland, which was got renewed from DTO Rupnagar, who in place of booklet type licence issued by DTO Mon Nagaland, issued another driving licence in the form of smart card having driving licence No.PB-1220010093922. Brother of the complainant lodged DDR No.25 dated 21.10.2015 with PS Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. Information to this effect was also given to the OPs for the claim of insurance alongwith necessary documents.
4. Complainant brought the vehicle from Banur to Rajpura, on the advice of OPs after getting necessary repairs done from JS Truck Body Works, Gagan Chowk, Rajpura by spending a sum of Rs.1,60,240/- vide bill no.399 dated 23.10.2015 which also included tochan charges.
5. Complainant kept on visiting the office of OPs to know about the status of his claim but they kept on postponing the matter on pretext or the other and ultimately in the month of March,2016 told the complainant to get his vehicle repaired as the claim was not still settled. Accordingly, complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending Rs.5,51,860/- vide various bills of  Gogi Auto Electric Works Ambala Road, Bye Pass,Rajpura, bill No.2630 dated 21.3.2016 for Rs.10,000/-, Pummy Show Repairing ,  bill No.1195 dated 22.3.2016 for Rs.16,176/-, Sohan Mechanical Works bill dated 21.3.2016 for Rs.31000/-, Bittu Truck Repairing bill dated 21.3.2016 for Rs.1,25,000/-, Anand Motor Works bills No.48 for Rs.48,000/-  Bill No.49  for Rs.18000/- and invoice No.ANAMOT-RP-1516-0156 for Rs.3,03,684 dated 21.3.2016.
6. Thereafter again complainant approached OPs for payment of compensation but to no effect and ultimately OPs vide letter dated 26.9.2016 refused to give the claim on the ground that Driver of the vehicle was originally having a driving licence of Nagaland i.e. DL No.20742/Mon/Prof issued by DTO, Mon Nagaland which was not converted with Smart Card and stood cancelled although driver of the vehicle Harpreet Singh S/o S.Nirmal Singh had already got the licence renewed from the Licencing Authority, Ropar on 5.9.2001 and the same was valid till 3.9.2016 for transport vehicle and till 4.9.2021 for Non-transport Vehicle. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant as the vehicle was financed and complainant could not deposit the installment. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.
7. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having raised certain preliminary objections.
8. On merits, insurance of the vehicle in question has been admitted. It is submitted that on receipt of intimation Sh.Kailash Chander, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed by the competent authority of the OPs for survey of vehicle in question, who after thorough survey gave his final report dated 22.4.2016. He also re-inspected the vehicle in question and gave re-inspection report dated 22.4.2016 with the OPs. It is alleged that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was reportedly driven by Harpreet Singh son of Nirmal Singh. Complainant submitted driving licence of Harpreet Singh bearing No.PB-1220010093922 issued by District Transport Officer, Roopnagar. Upon verification of the said driving licence, from DTO Roopnagar, it was revealed that old number of said DL is 23018MKG. Competent authority of the OPs got verified the DL No.23018/MKG from District Transport Officer Mon Nagaland and  the said DL was renewed from old DL No. 20742/Mon/Prof/01.Competent authority of the OP also got verified said driving licence from DTO, Nagaland, as per the report of which the said DL is not found in “Sarathi” software for driving licences and it is mentioned in the report that any licence other than “Sarathi” format stood cancelled w.e.f.1.12.2014 as per the notification of Government of Nagaland, Motor Vehicle Department through Transport Commissioner Kohima (Nagaland) vide its notification No.TC-23/MV/2007{PT-1} dated 1.8.2014.
9.  As such where there is no DL issued by DTO Mon (NL) on smart card and the date of loss falls after the date of notification, DL No.20742/Mon/Prof/01 and shall be treated as cancelled and all subsequent renewed/endorsements shall be of no use of insured and Mr.Harpreet Singh should be treated as having no driving licence and the complainant is not entitled for any claim  and  the OPs repudiated the claim on the ground that Harpreet Singh was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. After that complainant moved an application and produced driving licence in the shape of Smart Card having DL No.NL0420010007548 of driver Harpreet Singh, which was issued on 10.12.2016 i.e. after the accident. The booklet type licence was not valid on the date of accident i.e. 20.10.2015.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, OPs prayed for dismissal of complaint.
10. In support of his case, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in his affidavit,Ex.CA, affidavit of complainant, Ex.C1 copy of RC, Ex.C2 copy of insurance cover/policy, Ex.C3 copy of DDR, Ex.C4 copy of driving licence, Ex.C5 to Ex.C12, copies of bills, Ex.C13 copy of letter of repudiation of claim, Ex.C14 copies of postal orders and closed evidence.
11. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Kailash Chandra Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Ex.OPB affidavit of Kushwant Verma, Sr.Branch Manager alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 copy of survey report of Kailash Chandra, Ex.OP2 re-inspection report of Kailash Chandra, Ex.OP3 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP4 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP5 copy of letter dated 26.9.2016, Ex.OP6 copy of driving licence, Ex.OP7 report of Er.Shingara Singh, Ex.OP8 report of licencing authority, Roopnagar, Ex.OP9 copy of DL, Ex.OP10 report of LD Changkia, Ex.OP11 report, Ex.OP12 report of LD Changakia, Ex.OP13 report of DTO Mon Nagaland,Ex.OP14 notification of Govt. of Nagaland, Ex.OP15 letter dated 31.1.2017, Ex.OP16 copy of DL, Ex.OP17 report of Om Parkash Gupta, Ex.OP18 report, Ex.OP19 letter of intimation and closed evidence.
12. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. The complainant is owner of truck No.PB-11-BN-3945, copy of RC is Ex.C1.The said vehicle was insured with the OPs vide policy No.401402/31/15/6300001690 dated 28.8.2015, valid from 28.8.2015 to 27.8.2016, copy of certificate of insurance cum policy schedule is Ex.C2.While the said vehicle was being driven by the brother of complainant i.e. Harpreet Singh, met with an accident at Tepla Road, Patiala. DDR No.25 dated 21.10.2015 was lodged with police station, Banur, copy of which is Ex.C3. Said Harpreet Singh was holding driving licence No.PB1220010093922, issued by DTO Ropar, which was valid upto 3.9.2016,Ex.C4. Matter was brought to the notice of OPs and vehicle was got repaired from J.S.Truck Body Works, Rajpura by spending an amount of Rs.1,60,240/-, vide bill dated 23.10.2015,Ex.C5. Further an amount of Rs.5,51,860/- was also spent for the final repairs of the vehicle vide various bills from different workshops. The bills for the same are Exs.C6 to C12. The complainant approached the OPs regularly for the settlement of the claim. However, the claim was finally repudiated vide letter dated 26.9.2016, Ex.C13 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle Mr.Harpreet Singh had got his licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Nagaland,  renewed from the Licencing Authority, Ropar, whereas in fact the licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Nagaland stood cancelled in view of the notification issued by the Transport Commissioner, Nagaland.
14. OPs have not disputed any of the above facts and have argued that the driving licence produced by Harpreet Singh ,driver of the vehicle, copy of which is Ex.C4/Ex. OP6 bearing No. PB1220010093922, issued by DTO Ropar was got verified from the office of DTO, Ropar, copy of which is Ex.OP7 and as per the report furnished by DTO, Ropar, it was confirmed that renewal of licence is genuine. The old number of the licence was mentioned as 23018MKG Nagaland. Further as per the clarification given by DTO, Ropar, said licence was issued on 21.5.2015 with change of address and region, Ex.OP8. On further verification driving licence No.23018MKG, which was issued by Licencing Authority, Nagaland on 5.9.2001, it was observed that this licence was issued against old licence No.20742/Mon/Prof/01, copy of which is Ex.OP9. Investigator of the OPs has further confirmed that driving licence No.23018/Mkg/04, issued to Harpreet Singh by DTO, Mon on 5.9.2001 was valid upto 4.9.2021 for non transport and 3.9.2016 for transport vehicles(Ex.OP7). and was found correct as per office record. Driving licence No.20742/Mon/Prof/01, against which driving licence No.23018/MKG/04 was issued was also got verified by the OPs from the office of DTO, Nagaland and it was found that no record of the licence is available in Sarthi software,Ex.OP12. They have also produced on record copy of letter dated 30.6.2016,Ex.OP13, issued by DTO Nagaland, wherein it has been stated that driving licence No.20742/Mon/Prof/01 is not found in Sarthi Software and licences other than Sarthi Software have been cancelled w.e.f.1.12.2014, as per the notification issued by the Govt. of Nagaland on 1.8.2014,Ex.OP14.
15. Ld. counsel has also produced on record copy of driving licence No.NL0420010007548, Ex.OP16, in the shape of Smart Card issued by DTO, Nagaland with date of issue as 10.12.2016 and has argued that the complainant was fully aware about the notification issued by the Govt. of Nagaland regarding conversion of driving licences into Smart Card base driving licence to be carried out before 1.12.2014 and the driving licence which are not converted in the smart card shall be treated as cancelled. As such, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that driving licence issued by DTO, Ropar was issued on the basis of the driving licence which stood cancelled in the light of notification issued by the Govt. of Mainpur. As such, Harpreet Singh, driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and complainant is not entitled for any claim.
16. After hearing the ld. counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, carefully, it transpires that driving licence issued to Harpreet Singh on 21.5.2015 involved change of address and region with original licence having been issued by DTO Nagaland. The only ground on the basis of which driving licence issued by DTO Nagaland has been disputed is the notification issued by Govt. of Nagaland for converting the driving licence into smart card before 1.12.2014. It is not the case of the OPs that driving licence issued to Harpreet Singh by DTO Nagaland was a fake or forged document. In fact OPs have themselves produced report of the Investigator indicating that the said driving licence is valid as per the office record.Therefore, the insurance company does not seem to be justified in repudiating the claim solely on the ground that the driving licence issued by the Competent Authority of Nagaland was not converted into smart card within the stipulated period. The insurance companies are not permitted to dislodge  the claim of the insured on the grounds of such hyper technicalities.
17. It is also a fact that Harpreet Singh had shifted from Nagaland to Ropar and had also got his driving licence renewed from the DTO, Ropar which was duly done after the verification of the licence from DTO Nagaland.
18. Moreover, once Harpreet Singh had shifted from Nagaland to Ropar and smart card base driving licence was issued by DTO,Ropar, there was little urgency to get the old driving licence converted into a smart card based driving licence which in fact was done by Harpreet Singh after getting the same issued from DTO, Ropar. Reliance can be placed on the judgment issued in Civil Appeal No.4071 of 2020, decided on 20.5.2022 titled as Gurmel Singh Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,  wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that ‘The Insurance Companies are refusing the claims on flimsy grounds and/or on technical grounds’.
19. Complainant had put on record various bills for the repair of the vehicle in question i.e. bill  No. 399 dated 23.10.2015 for Rs.1,60,240/-Ex.C5 for the repair of the vehicle from J.S.Truck Body Works, which included cost of the old cabin, , tyres and tochan  charges . We are of the opinion that the tyres are never insured and as such cost of the tyres is not payable to the complainant and an amount of Rs.1,15,240/- is due to the complainant on account of this bill. Complainant has also put on record bill No.2630 dated 21.3.2016, for Rs.10,000/- Ex.C6 of Gogi Auto Electric Works, bill No.1195 dated 22.3.2016 for Rs.16,176,Ex.C7 of Pummy Show Repairing,  bill dated 21.3.2016 for Rs.31,000/-,Ex.C8 of Sohan Mechanical Works, bill dated 21.3.2016 of Rs.1,25,000/- of Bittu Truck Repair,Ex.C9, bill No.48 dated 21.3.2016 for Rs.48,000/-,Ex.C10 of Anand Motor Workshop, bill No.49 dated 21.3.2016 for Rs.18,000/- of Anand Motor Workshop,Ex.C11, and invoice No.ANAMOT RP-1516-01566 dated 21.3.2016 for Rs.3,03,684/-Ex.C13 of Anand Motor Workshop. A perusal of above bills indicate that repair of the vehicle was got done from Anand Motor workshop, being authorized dealer of Tata Motors and also from various petty repair workshops and bills of the same are dated 21.3.2016. We are of the opinion that repair works from various workshops cannot be got done on the same day/date. Moreover, when the vehicle was sent for repair to authorized dealer i.e. Anand Motor Workshop, the complainant had no business to get the work done from these petty repair workshops. As such we of the considered opinion that bills of Gogi Auto Electric Works, Pummy Show Repairing, Sohan Mechanical Works and Bittu Truck Repair are not payable to the complainant.
20. In view of the above consideration, we are of the considered opinion that claim of the complainant has been rejected on flimsy grounds. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant as per the bills for an amount of Rs.1,60,240/- spent on 23.10.2015 and Rs.48000/- + Rs.18000/- + Rs.3,03,684/- spent for the repair of the vehicle from Anand Motor Workshop, totaling Rs.5,29,924/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing with OPs shall pay interest on the said amount @9% per annum from the date of order i.e.5.4.2023 till realization. No order as to cost and compensation.   
21.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                                 G.S.Nagi                        S.K.AGGARWAL

                                                  Member                      President