Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/153/2019

Kartar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shubhankar Baweja

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/153/2019
Date of Institution	:	15/03/2019
Date of Decision	:	11/10/2022

 

Kartar Singh s/o Joginder Singh r/o Village Dashmesh Nagar, Chander Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad, Haryana.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., registered office at SCO 147-148, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Partner/ Authorised Signatory.
2. Nissan Motor Pvt. Ltd., Godrej Eternia, Industrial Phase 1, Chandigarh through its Authorised signatory/Manager. (struck off vide order dated 19.3.2019).

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Ms. Dipty Choudhary, Vice Counsel for Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Counsel for OP-1.
	:	OP-2 (struck off vide order dated 19.3.2019)

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Kartar Singh, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR23H-1935 (hereinafter referred to as “vehicle in question”) which was insured with OP-1/Insurance Company w.e.f. 19.7.2017 to 18.7.2018.  On 17.1.2018, when the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh. Gurpreet Singh and it was coming towards Patiala from Haryana and reached near Lakshmi Farm at Nabha Road, due to dense fog it banged into a truck and suffered damage.  The matter was reported to Police and DDR No.20 dated 17.1.2018 (Annexure C-3) was recorded at Police Post Century, District Patiala. Thereafter, claim was lodged by the complainant with OP-1, but, the same was repudiated vide letter dated 17.3.2018 (Annexure C-1) on the ground that at the relevant time the vehicle in question was not being driven by Sh.Gurpreet Singh, but, by Sh. Taranpreet Singh who was not possessing a valid driving licence and the said fact was also found during investigation. Averred, the said letter dated 17.3.2018 qua repudiation of the claim on the basis of illegal investigation has no effect on the rights of the complainant so far as the claim is concerned, especially when at the relevant time the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by Sh. Gurpreet Singh who was possessing valid driving licence. The complainant requested OP-1 several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP-1 resisted the consumer complaint, filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objection of maintainability. On merits admitted the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the answering OP w.e.f. 19.7.2017 to 18.7.2018 with IDV of ₹4,43,797/- and that it met with an accident on the relevant date, time and place. However, denied that at the relevant time the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh.Gurpreet Singh, rather during investigation it was found that it was being driven by Sh. Taranpreet Singh who was not possessing driving licence at the relevant time. It is further alleged that on receiving information about the accident, OP swung into action and deputed Sh.Shubham Arora, investigator to investigate the matter who submitted his report dated 17.2.2018 and concluded that at the time of accident, Sh. Taranpreet Singh son of the complainant/insured was driving the vehicle in question and he was not possessing valid driving licence at that time, by recording the statement of the complainant, Sh. Gurpreet Singh and Sh. Taranpreet Singh.  The claim of the complainant was accordingly repudiated as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Since neither any relief was sought against OP-2 nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice alleged against it, therefore, name of OP-2 was struck off from the array of OPs.
4. No replication/rejoinder has been filed by the complainant.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for OP-1 and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for claim as prayed for?
3. Whether the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP-1?

Point Nos.1 & 3

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. Admittedly, the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, as is also evident from the copy of RC (attached at internal page 32 of the paperbook).  It is further an admitted case of the parties that at the relevant time, the car in question was insured with OP-1 w.e.f. 19.7.2017 to 18.7.2018 with the IDV of ₹4,43,797/-, as is also evident from copy of the certificate cum policy schedule (Annexure C-2).  It is further an admitted case of the parties that on the relevant date, time and place, the vehicle in question met with an accident and the matter was reported to the police as a result of which DDR dated 17.1.2018 was recorded at PP Century Enclave, Patiala, as is also evident from copy of DDR (Annexure C-3).  The case of the complainant is that since the vehicle in question, having been driven by Sh. Gurpreet Singh,  met with an accident on the relevant date, time and place and also that he was possessing valid driving licence, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by OP-1 on the ground that it was found during investigation by the surveyor that the vehicle in question was not being driven by Sh.Gurpreet Singh, rather the same was being driven by Sh.Taranpreet Singh, who was not possessing valid driving valid licence, is wrong and the complainant has successfully proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs, as prayed for.  On the other hand, the defence of OP-1 is that as it is clear on record that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was not being driven by Sh. Gurpreet Singh, rather the same was being driven by Sh.Taranpreet Singh, who was not possessing any driving licence at the relevant time, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP and the consumer complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs. 
6. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is to be determined if, on the relevant date, time and place, the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh. Gurpreet Singh or Sh. Taranpreet Singh and that he was not possessing a valid driving licence.
7. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the rival pleadings of the contesting parties, are discussed as under:-

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the same was duly insured with OP-1 with IDV of ₹4,43,797/- and the same met with an accident on the relevant date, time and place, the case of the complainant is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if, on the relevant date, time and place, the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh.Gurpreet Singh, who was possessing a valid driving licence or the same was being driven by Sh.Taranpreet Singh, who was not possessing valid driving licence at that time.
2. As per the case of the complainant, since the copy of DDR (available at Page 31 of the complainant’s documents) clearly refers that at the time of accident, the said vehicle was being driven by Sh. Gurpreet Singh and not by Sh.Taranpreet Singh, complainant has proved on record that the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh.Gurpreet Singh who was possessing a valid driving licence and not by Sh.Taranpreet Singh.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP-1 contended that as complainant, Sh.Gurpreet Singh and Sh.Taranpreet Singh have made statements before the surveyor that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was being driven by Taranpreet Singh, who was not possessing any driving licence, it is clear on record that the vehicle in question was being driven by a person not having driving licence and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for OP-1 as the complainant himself, Gurpreet Singh and Taranpreet Singh in their statements before the surveyor have coaxed in one voice, as is also evident from the copy of statement of complainant (available at page 22 to 25), statement of Sh.Taranpreet Singh (available at page 26-27) and statement of the occupant Sh.Gurpreet Singh s/o Sh. Baldev Singh, that on the relevant date, time and place, the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh.Taranpreet Singh, son of the complainant, who was not possessing driving licence at that time and OP-1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Not only this, even in his statement Sh.Gurpreet Singh has categorically stated that he was not driving the vehicle in question, rather the same was being driven by Sh.Taranpreet Singh and his statement to that extent has also been endorsed by Sh.Taranpreet Singh and the complainant.  Thus, when the factum of driving of the vehicle in question by Sh.Gurpreet Singh was denied by OP-1 in its written statement and the same was not rebutted by the complainant by filing any rejoinder or replication making it further clear that, at the relevant time, the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh.Taranpreet Singh who admittedly was not possessing any driving licence at the time of accident.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that on the relevant date, time and place, the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh.Taranpreet Singh who was not possessing driving licence and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by OP-1.

Point No.2

9. In the light of discussion on points No.1 & 3, as it has already been held that the vehicle in question was not being driven by Sh.Gurpreet Singh but by Sh.Taranpreet Singh, who was not holding a driving licence at that time, it is unsafe to hold that complainant is entitled for the claim, as prayed for.
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 11/10/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member