Haryana

StateCommission

A/1462/2017

DEVENDER RANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

AMRAINDER SINGH

13 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.1462 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 04.12.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 13.07.2022

 

Devender Rana S/o Late Sh.Balbir Singh, R/o Bibipur Kalan, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Heerachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai (Registered office) through its Managing Director.
2. Rinku Bansal, Manager/Agent, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited shop No.34, Grain Market, Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Amrainder Singh, Advocate for the appellant

Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.1462 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.108 of 2015, which was dismissed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of car bearing Registration No.HR-08Q/0080. The vehicle in question was got insured with the opposite party (OP No.1) through OP No.2 i.e. agent.  The relative of complainant borrowed the car from him.  Unfortunately, on 01.04.2014  when the car reached near Chandigarh Palace, it tyre got burst and the vehicle fell into deep goorg on the road side. Due to the above said accident, Rajbir Singh, who was driving the car died at the spot and other two occupants suffered severe injuries. DDR was registered on 01.04.2014. The vehicle got damaged extensively.  The complainant moved his claim for the loss of vehicle, but, the claim was repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver Rajbir Singh was not having valid and effective driving licence.  At the time of accident, the value of the car was estimated to be Rs.4,50,000/- after deducting the salvage value. The complainant requested the OPs to pay the insured amount, but, to no avail. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      O.P. while filing the written statement raised preliminary objections about concealment of true facts, estoppel, maintainability of complaint, etc. and requested to dismiss the complaint.   It was further alleged that intimation about the incident was received  on the same day. Upon receipt of intimation, surveyor was appointed, who inspected the site and at the time of inspection, he found that driver Rajbir Singh was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.  It was revealed that licence was issued in the name of Mr. Sunil Kumar S/o Noor Mohammad valid up to 22.06.2034.    On merits, it was alleged that since driver Rajbir was not having  valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, so as per violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as prayed for.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

5.      O.P.No.2 filed separate written statement of defence.  It was alleged that the OP No.2 was neither a party to the contract nor was liable to make payment of any compensation to him The insurance policy was issued by OP No.1. The OP No.2 has been wrongly and un-neccessorily impleaded as party in the present complaint without any rhyme and reason with ulterior motive to harass him. There was no question of any deficiency in service on the part of OP NO.2 as only function of the OP No.2 was to get the policy issued to him.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra dismissed the complaint vide order dated 10.10.2017.

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-respondent has preferred this appeal.

8.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Amrainder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for the respondent.  With their kind assistance entire records of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that at the time of accident,  Rajbir Singh driver of the vehicle  was having valid  and effective driving licence, hence, the repudiation was illegal and deserves to be set aside. The complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

10.    Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that at the time of accident, driver Rajbir Singh was not having valid and effective driving licence, hence violation of one of the important conditions of policy, the repudiation is legal and justified and District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint.

11.    Perusal of Ex. R-2  reply to the RTI application by Assistant State Public Information Officer of Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Panchkula, reveals that  as per the record driving licence register licence No.5363 dated 03.08.2005 was issued in the name of Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.Noor Mohammad, R/o Gate No.4, Old Panchkula, which was  valid upto 22.06.2034.  It was also informed that the said licence was not issued in the name of Rajbir S/o Kanwar Pal Singh, R/o Vill Behbalpur Molli, Panchkula.    As per the surveyor report this licence number 5363 of 03.08.2005 was produced before him alleging it to be of Rajbir.  If we look into the terms and conditions of the policy, it was required of the owner or policy holder to ensure that the person whom he permitted  to drive his vehicle must have a valid and effecting licence to drive the same of such owner seek to enforce a claim of loss to the insured vehicle. Since Sh.Rajbir who was driving the vehicle when it met with an accident did not  have a  licence valid and effective so this tribunal feels that the complainant is not entitled for the claim amount. Therefore, learned District Commission rightly dismissed the claim of the complainant.

12.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal stands dismissed on merits.

 

13th  July, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)