Haryana

StateCommission

A/183/2018

JITENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

SUKHDEEP SINGH PARMAR

11 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                         

                                                          Date of Institution: 09.02.2018

                                                          Date of final hearing:11.04.2023

                                                          Date of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

 

 

APPEAL NO.183 OF 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

                      

Jitender Kumar son of Shri Randhir Singh, resident of Village Dahar, Tehsil and District Panipat, Haryana.

 

                                             ….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 1215, 12^th Floor, Naurang House 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

1. Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

         

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President

                   Ms. manjula, member

 

                                                                                                                   

 

Present:     Shri Rohit Rana, proxy counsel for Shri Ankur Chowdhary, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Vinod Gupta, counsel for the respondents.

                  

 

 

 

 

PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

 

ORDER

 

 

1. The complainant, namely, Jitender Kumar has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for challenging the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed.
2. The case of the complainant in nutshell was that he was owner of vehicle Eicher Canter bearing registration No.HR-67A-3050 and the said vehicle insured with the opposite parties vide insurance policy valid from 10.08.2014 to 09.08.2015. The said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Police Station, Israna district Panipat on 04.11.2014 and FIR No.224 dated 04.11.2014 was lodged in this regard. The vehicle was badly damaged in the accident and was brought to Bansal Motors, G.T. Road, Madanpur Road, Karnal where an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- was spent by the complainant on repair of the vehicle, which amount was paid by the complainant vide receipt No.15189 dated 19.01.2015. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties and furnished all the documents required for settlement of the claim but the opposite parties made the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” vide letter dated 01.12.2015, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for payment of the claim alongwith compensation for mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed the written version disputing the claim of the complainant. Preliminary objections were taken about the claim being estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; the complainant had concealed the true and material facts while filing the complaint and as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On merits, it was pleaded that the accident and damaged to the said vehicle was admitted by the opposite parties. It was also submitted that on receipt of information of accident, an independent surveyor was deputed to assess the loss of damages to the vehicle who submitted his report to the insurance company and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,85,923/- whereas the amount Rs.3,24,000/- as costs of repair of the vehicle had wrongly been submitted by the complainant. It was further submitted that license of driver Rampal had been treated as cancelled under the government notification of Nagaland. As such, the license of Rampal did not exist under the law. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were specifically denied and it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. In support of his case, the complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C-11 whereas the opposite parties filed their affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and Ex.RW3/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-11.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and ongoing through the evidence, the District Consumer Forum while observing that the complainant was not entitled to any relief, dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved of the impugned order, the complainant has filed the present appeal and the opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and pleaded that no case is made out for accepting the appeal.
7. Having heard counsel for the parties and on going through the record, which stands requisitioned, the State Commission finds that the opposite parties had declined the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driving license of driver Rampal issued after 30.10.2009 on booklet or otherwise except on Smart Card stood cancelled and therefore not genuine. The driving license of the vehicle was manual one and not on Smart Card. As such, driver was not holding a valid and genuine driving license. The Licensing Authority Zuheboto Nagaland has given the report vide letter No.DTO-Z/RTI Act, 205/2015-2016/992 dated 16.11.2015 to Advocate Shri Upender Singh that particulars of driving license No.1161/2011 had not been converted to Smart Card and for information. As per notification of Transport Commissioner, Nagaland, any driving license other than Smart Card has to be treated as cancelled and invalid.
8. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon letter dated 16.06.2017, which pertains to information provided under the Right to Information Act and perusal thereof shows that the license of the complainant had been converted into a smart card on 15.06.2017. As such, at the time of accident, license of Rampal stood cancelled as per notification order of Transport Commissioner, Nagaland. As per which, all the driving licenses in the form of booklet or any other manual format other than smart card ought to have been converted into smart card format on or before 01.12.2014. The driving license issued had to be treated as cancelled as it was not in smart card format. In the present case, the accident took place on 04.11.2014 and as on the date of accident, the license of the driver of the complainant was not converted into smart card format. The driver was not holding a valid and genuine driving license and on account of the same, the opposite parties had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
9. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
10. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
11. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the law. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.

 

 

 

(T.P.S. MANN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

(MANJULA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Pronounced On: 11.04.2023

MS