DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/60/2018

Date of Institution : 10.05.2018

Date of Decision : 09.07.2019

Balvir Singh son of Sh. Surjit Singh resident of Near Geeta Bhawan, Ward No. 7, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala.                             …Complainant

Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanaula Road, Near Honda Showroom, Barnala Branch, Barnala, District Barnala, through its Branch Manager. 

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Khatti Bazar, Branch Office-Rampuraphul, through its Branch Manager.

3. Punjab Motor Vehicle Department, Sangrur through its Regional Transport Authority. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Singla counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

Sh. Pankaj Sharma authorized representative for opposite party No. 3.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

1.    The complainant namely Balvir Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (In short the Act) against United India Insurance Company and another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is owner of one Truck make Tata LPS-4018-TC bearing registration No. PB-19K-9898 and the complainant purchased one comprehensive policy for the period from 30.9.2017 to 29.9.2018 from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and paid the premium at Tapa, District Barnala for insurance policy No. 2004043117P109302779. It is further alleged that opposite party No. 3 issued one driving license No. PB-1920100084169 and the same was expired, as such the complainant applied for renewal of the same on 25.10.2017. He deposited all required documents and fees with the opposite party No. 3 and the driving license of complainant was renewed from 25.10.2017. After one week, the complainant visited the opposite party No. 3 to get his driving license but every time opposite party No. 3 told that due to defect in the software, the copy of the driving license could not be generated and as and when the software is OK the complainant will be given the copy of his driving license w.e.f. 25.10.2017. 

3. It is further alleged that on 6.11.2017 the said Truck overturned near Talwandi Bhaike Chowk and the complainant immediately informed the insurance company regarding the accident and spot survey was got done by insurance company. On the directions of insurance company the said vehicle was placed with Gobind Motors, Rampuraphul an authorized service centre of Tata Motors for repair purpose. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,65,989/- on the repair and toeing charges of the vehicle and submitted all the required documents alongwith claim form with the insurance company for the settlement of claim. The insurance company told the complainant to pay all the said charges and assumed that his claim will be settled within fifteen days. The officials of the insurance company took the signatures of complainant one some blank printed papers by saying that it is just a formality for the settlement of claim. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of insurance company many times for settlement of his claim but all in vain inspite of the fact that insurance company must have settled the claim within 60 days. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) To pay a sum of Rs. 2,65,898/- the expenses incurred on the repair of vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

2) To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.           

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Opposite party No. 3 be directed to issue the driving license of the complainant w.e.f. 25.10.2017 i.e. date of renewal.

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus-standi, cause of action, maintainability, complaint is pre-mature and jurisdiction etc.  

5. On merits,  it is submitted that GCV Public Carrier other than 3 wheelers package policy was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 2 at Rampuraphul and no such policy was issued by the opposite party No. 2 at Barnala. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the persons or classes of persons entitled to drive the vehicle are as under:-

“Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective and valid driving license to drive the category of vehicle insured as under, at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that a person holding an effective and valid Leaner's License to drive the category of vehicle insured hereunder may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of passengers at the time of accident and that the person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989”. It is denied that the driving license of the complainant has been renewed from 25.10.2017. 

6. It is admitted to the extent that the vehicle of the complainant overturned near Talwandi Bhaike Chowk on 6.11.2017 and on receipt of intimation spot survey was gone done by the opposite party No. 2 and the complainant submitted the claim form with them. It is denied that the opposite parties ever directed the complainant to place the vehicle with M/s Gobind Motors Rampuraphul for repairs. It is further denied that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 2,65,989/- on repair of vehicle. It is further submitted that on receipt of intimation K.S. Bawa & Co. Surveyor and Loss Assessor from Moga was deputed to conduct the spot survey and accordingly Shri K.S. Bawa proprietor of K.S. Bawa & Co. visited the spot and took the photographs without prejudice and in respect of cause, nature and extent of loss/damage, opposite party No. 2 also deputed Er. Dinesh K.Goyal Surveyor and Loss Assessor from Bhatinda to submit his final survey report, as such he inspected the damaged vehicle at Rampuraphul, arranged necessary photographs and noted the damages. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,65,046/- subject to the deposit of salvage of parts or deduct Rs. 4,500/- in lieu of it from Rs. 1,65,046/- to which the insured agreed and gave his consent subject to terms and conditions of policy and submitted his report dated 2.1.2018 alongwith the photographs and consent letter given by the complainant on 26.12.2017 without prejudice. It is further submitted that the driving license of Baldev Singh son of Pritam Singh the driver of vehicle was also got verified from Regional Transport Authority, Sangrur through Sh. B.L. Goyal Surveyor/Assessor/Investigator from Dhuri who verified the same and submitted his report dated 30.3.2018 alongwith the verification made on behalf of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Sangrur with regard to the validity of driving license and as per report dated 30.3.2018 the driving license of Baldev singh was valid from 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2020 for transport vehicles. It is further submitted the vehicle of the complainant was damaged on 6.11.2017 in an accident, as such on the date of accident the driver Baldev Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and due to this complainant is not entitled to any claim. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

7. In reply to complaint the opposite party No. 3 submitted that there is no denying that one Shri Baldev Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh had applied for the renewal of driving license bearing No. PB-1920100084169 on 25.10.2017 by tendering documents and fee was deposited by him On line vide Cash Receipt No. PB 13A/2040 dated 25.10.2017. As per record driving license is found to have allowed for Transport Vehicle for the period from 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2020. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of complaint against them. 

8. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of cover note dated 29.9.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-3, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 6.11.2017 Ex.C-5, copy of bill dated 4.12.2017 Ex.C-6, copy of bill dated 2.12.2017 Ex.C-7, copy of bill dated 24.11.2017 Ex.C-8, copy of bill dated 24.11.2017 Ex.C-9, copy of tax invoice Ex.C-10, copy of driving licnece Ex.C-11, copy of driving licence Ex.C-12, copy of motor claim form Ex.C-13, copy of claim intimation Ex.C-14, copy of from receipt of society fees Ex.C-15, copy of application Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence copy of insurance policy with terms and conditions Ex.O.P.1.2/1, copy of report dated 20.11.2017 Ex.O.P.1.2/2, copy of final survey report of Dinesh K. Goyal dated 2.1.2018 alonwith photographs Ex.O.P.1.2/3, copy of reinspection report of Dinesh K. Goyal alonwith photographs dated 2.1.2018 Ex.O.P.1.2/4, copy of consent letter dated 26.12.2017 Ex.O.P.1.2/5, copy of report of Sh. B.L. Goyal dated 30.3.2018 alongwith verification issued on behalf of secretary RTA Sangrur Ex.O.P.1.2/6, copy of repudiation letter dated 5.7.2018 Ex.O.P.1.2/7, affidavit of Baldev Singh Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.O.P.1.2/8, affidavit of K.S. Bawa Ex.O.P.1.2/9, affidavit of Dinesh K. Goyal Ex.O.P.1.2/10, affidavit of B.L. Goyal Ex.O.P.1.2/11 and closed the evidence.

10. The opposite party No. 3 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Ex.O.P.-3/1 and closed the evidence. 

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have also been gone through.

12. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 under GCV Public Carrier other than 3 Wheelers Package policy. It is also admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Talwandi Bhai Ke Chowk on 6.11.2017 and spot survey was done by the opposite party No. 2 and complainant submitted the claim form with the insurance company. It is also admitted between the complainant and insurance company that the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of accident i.e. 6.11.2017 the driver of the vehicle Baldev Singh was not holding the valid and effective driving license. It is also admitted between the parties that the driving license of Baldev Singh driver of the vehicle in question was valid from 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2020. The opposite party No. 3 admitted in their written statement that the driver Baldev Singh had applied for the renewal of his driving license on 25.10.2017 by tendering all the documents including renewal fee which was deposited vide receipt dated 25.10.2017 and same was renewed from 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2020. The opposite party No. 3 also admitted that renewal of driving license of Baldev Singh delayed for about 10 days due to data porting problem on the introduction of Online Saarthi 4 Software. 

13. Now the main question before us is whether the driver of the vehicle which was insured with the opposite parties was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident or not ?

14. To prove that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident  i.e. on 6.11.2017 the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has reiterated all his allegations as mentioned in the complaint. He has also filed copy of insurance policy Ex.C-3 to prove that on the date of accident the vehicle was duly insured with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. He has also filed copy of old driving license Ex.C-11 which was valid till 28.5.2017 and copy of new driving license Ex.C-12 which is valid till 9.11.2020. He has also filed copy of claim form Ex.C-13 and copy of claim intimation Ex.C-14 vide which the complainant informed the opposite parties about the accident. The complainant also filed copy of most important document copy of Form receipt of Society fee Ex.C-15 vide which he proved that the driver Baldev Singh applied for the renewal of the driving license on 25.10.2017 and delay of renewal is due to deficiency on the part of opposite party No. 3 who renewed the driving license of the driver of the vehicle in question only on 10.11.2017 due to some problem in data software. 

15. On the other hand the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to rebut the case of the complainant mainly on the verification issued by Secretary RTA Sangrur Ex.OP-1.2/6 vide which they proved that the driving license of the driver of the vehicle in question was valid from 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2020, so on the date of accident i.e. 6.11.2017 the driver of the vehicle Baldev Singh was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 5.7.2018 Ex.OP-1.2/7 due to this reason which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, they have also relied upon the report of Er. Dinesh Kumar Goyal Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP-1.2/3 who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,65,046/- and salvage value as Rs. 4,500/- to which the complainant also gave his consent vide letter dated 26.12.2017 Ex.OP-1.2/5. They have also relied upon affidavit of Er. Dinesh Kumar Goyal Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP-1.2/10 in which also he deposed and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,65,046/- subject to deposit of salvage of parts or to deduct Rs. 4,500/- in lieu of it from Rs. 1,65,046/- to which the insured agreed and gave his consent. 

16. We have perused the record on the file that and found that the driver Baldev Singh was not having renewed license at the time of accident i.e 6.11.2017 but he has applied for the same on 25.10.2017 and it is the opposite party No. 3 who delayed the same due to the reasons mentioned in their written version and affidavit. Further, it is admitted by the opposite parties that the license of the Baldev Singh was valid till 28.5.2017 and after that from 10.11.2017 to 9.11.2020 it was valid and it is point of discussion that in the gap of 29.5.2017 to 9.11.2017 whether the same was valid for insurance purpose. 

17. In case titled National Insurance Company Limited Versus Kusam Rai and others 2006 (4) SCC-250 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nanjappan and Others 2004 (13) SCC-224 the Hon'ble Apex Court of India held that the insurance company- insurer was liable to indemnify the award merely on the ground that there was a gap in the renewal of the driving license that cannot be a ground for exoneration. 

18. In the light of these citations of Hon'ble Supreme Court and admission of opposite party No. 3 in their written version we are of the view that the driving license of Baldev Singh was valid at the time of accident and insurance company cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant on this ground. 

19. Secondly, the complainant claimed the amount of Rs. 2,65,898/- on account of insurance claim whereas the Surveyor of the insurance company assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,65,046/- subject to deposit of salvage of parts or deduct Rs. 4,500/- in lieu of it from Rs. 1,65,046/- and complainant also gave his consent for this amount vide consent letter Ex.OP-1.2/5. 

20. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Devender Malhotra Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And another reported in 2016(3) CLT-525 held as under.- 

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(g), 19 and 21 (a)(ii)-Insurance claim- Surveyor report- Held- It is an established legal proposition that the report made by the Surveyor, who is a professional in his field, cannot be disbelieved, unless there are cogent and convincing reasons to do so. (Para 10).”

21. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Suhas Gajanan Unune Reported in 1 (2019) CPJ-307 (NC) held as under.-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1) (d), 21(b)- Insurance- Accident of vehicle- Total loss- Claim repudiated- Deficiency in service- District Forum allowed total loss as the insurance claim- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence revision- Both Foras below have not given any cogent reasons for not accepting report of Surveyor- Surveyor has assessed loss on repair basis for a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 3,90,000/- instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- Because of delay in settling the matter, if vehicle was kept parked and unused, lump sum charges of Rs. 20,000/- allowed to be paid to complainant as parking charges.”

In view of these citations of the Hon'ble National Commission and consent of the complainant we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to the amount which was assessed by the Surveyor of company which is Rs. 1,65,046/- subject to deposit of salvage of parts or deduct Rs. 4,500/- in lieu of it from Rs. 1,65,046/-. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 also not paid this amount to the complainant so there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the their part. The opposite party No. 3 is also deficient in providing service as the opposite party No. 3 delayed the renewal of the license of the driver Baldev Singh due to which the complainant may suffer loss in lacs of rupees and dragged the complainant in the present litigation. 

22. As a result of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,65,046/- subject to deposit of salvage of parts or deduct Rs. 4,500/- in lieu of it from Rs. 1,65,046/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum after three months of lodging of claim till  realization and to pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment. The opposite party No. 3 is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are also directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as costs in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum. Compliance of order be made within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

9th Day of July 2019

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

           President

 

 

           (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                Member