DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 781

 Instituted on:   29.12.2020 

                                                                         Decided on:     14.03.2024

Jaswinder Singh Jandu son of Gurdev Singh village Khare Patti, Mehlan, District Sangrur.      

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited above bank of Baroda, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

….Opposite party

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH               : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri J.S.Kaler, Advocate              

For the OP                        : Shri M.P. Singh Pahwa and

  Shri Amanjot Singh Advocate

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1.             The complainant has alleged in this complaint that he  is the owner of truck bearing registration no.PB-19-H-7208. The complainant purchased from OP an insurance policy number 1117053118P110390156 for his above said vehicle which was valid from 13.11.2018 to 12.11.2019. On 30.01.2019 the truck of the complainant was driven by driver namely Bobby. He was coming from Pathankot with his brother Ashu. The truck was loaded. At that time some stray animal came in front of the truck. The driver tried to save the truck from accident. In this process the truck imbalanced. The truck hit the tree alongside the road. In this accident driver died on the spot. The matter was reported to the police station bulowal and the insurance company in time. The OP appointed surveyor who collected all the documents from the complainant and inspected the vehicle. The complainant got repaired his truck and spend Rs.7,00,000/-.  The complainant received a letter dated 19.10.2020 in which OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground the driver of the vehicle  was not having  valid driving licence and same was suspended from the date of inception. When the complainant engaged the driver for his vehicle, at that time the complainant verified the driving licence of the driver and the same was valid. The OP committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service qua the complainant and  lastly prayed that the OP may kindly directed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- claim amount alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of accident till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.30000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version taking  preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the OP and the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant  has not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The truck was being driven by the driver  without any valid driving licence. On merits, the matter was got investigated by the OP through investigator. It was found that the driving licence of the driver namely Bobby was found suspended since 12.10.2013. The  surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.5,74,805/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complaint is malafide. The claim has been rightly repudiated. It is denied  that there is any deficiency in service  or unfair trade practice qua the OP.  The remaining allegations are denied by the OP and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.

3.             In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his self attested affidavit Ex.C-1 and some other documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and the complainant further tendered into additional evidence documents Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed the additional evidence.  

4.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party produced in their evidence  affidavit Ex.OP/1 and some other documents i.e  Ex.OP/2 to Ex.OP/4  and   closed evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for  parties and gone through the record file carefully  with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

6.             Now, come to major controversy,  whether the complainant is liable for relief  as claimed by him in his prayer or  not?

7.             During arguments, learned counsel for the complainant more focused on this issue that at the time of accident  of the truck in question the driver was holding a valid driving licence.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP main contention is that  the person having the truck  at the time of accident i.e. 30.01.2019 was not holding effective driving licence. There was breach of fundamental condition of the policy.  It is not disputed that the truck of complainant( supra)  was insured with the OP. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the insurance policy  no. 1117053118P110390156 for his above said vehicle which was valid from 13.11.2018 to 12.11.2019. It transpires from the perusal of Ex.C-3 on page no.2 certificate of insurance the insured declared value mentioned as Rs.13,50,000/-. Further, it is mentioned that the truck in question engine number 4126103 and chassis no.0008293, model of truck 2013.  The complainant paid total premium of Rs.58296/-  for the insurance policy of the truck    (supra). The brief facts of the accident of the truck occurred on 30.01.2019 the truck of the complainant was being driven by driver Bobby. He was coming from Pathankot. A stray animal came in front of the truck. In this situation, the truck was imbalanced and hit with the tree . Unfortunately, the driver died on the spot.

8.             As per pleadings of complaint para no.3  ( c) it is specifically pleaded that the complainant got repaired his truck and spent a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.

Per contra,  from the perusal of reply of OP on merits in para no.3 ( b) OP pleaded that the investigator found that the driving licence of the driver namely Bobby was found suspended since 12.10.2013. The surveyor assessed a loss of the truck ( supra) of Rs.5,74,805/-.

It is writ large on the file Ex.C-6 is a repudiation letter in which the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of driving licence of driver suspended since 12.10.2013. From the perusal of Ex.C-7 the driving licence  validity details mentioned with regard to non-transport from 12.10.2013 to 11.10.2033 and  transport from 21.12.2018 to 20.12.2021.

In this juncture, driving  licence was not expired at the time of accident i.e. on 30.01.2019. Further,  as per Ex.C-8 Extract of Driving Licence has shown  the driving licence suspended order on 17.12.2019 with remarks “ procedural lapse”. The extract is duly signed by the Regional Transport Authority, Faridkot. The  official stamp is also embossed on the same.

The surveyor assessed the net loss of the truck in question of Rs.5,74,805/-. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Ex.OP1/3 consent letter has already been executed on 07.01.2020 by the complainant  and provided to the OP. In the consent letter  the loss of truck (supra) complainant is finally agreed with the survey and loss assessment  as full and final settlement. It is writ large on the file that the complainant is fully satisfied loss assessment made by surveyor namely Er.Dinesh Kumar Goyal the loss occurred of the truck in question. In this context, the net amount of loss is payable of Rs.5,74,805/- assessed by the OP for the complainant’s  damaged truck. It seems  from the perusal of Ex.OP1/3 in the consent letter the complainant had given  his consent for its correctness after that the complainant put his signature with his sweet will on the consent letter dated 07.01.2020. “A man can lie, but document can’t”.

9.             Further, as per Ex.OP-1/4 details of driving licence bearing no.PB-0420130010151 which was downloaded from the portal of Privahan Sewa, Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. It is specifically mentioned that the driving licence was suspended on 12.10.2013 with remarks “ procedural lapse”.   This  Commission has the considered view that as per Ex.C-8  the driving licence of the driver suspended on 17.12.2019 due to procedural lapse. We feel that the concerned Regional Transport Authority, Faridkot did not disclose the reasons for suspension of the driving licence of the driver. Moreover, till date the  licence was not cancelled  by the Regional Transport Authority, Faridkot. However, the OP has  miserably failed to prove this factum by way of reliable, truthworthy and cogent evidence that the driving licence of the driver was suspended due to the fault of the driver namely Bobby who  had died  on the spot on 30.01.2019 in the truck accident. Furthermore, OP is unable to prove that the suspended driving licence of the driver  is fake one. It is well established Principle of law is that “ Let hundred guilty be acquitted but one innocent should not be convicted” so the presumption of innocence of the wrongdoer requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in order to establish the guilt of wrongdoer. In this juncture, the Consumer Protection Act is a special Act, it prevails on the general act.  It is specifically mentioned in Ex.C-8 and Ex.OP1/4  driving licence suspended remarks “ procedural lapse” only.  The OP has failed to prove this factum that on 30.01.2019 at the time of insured truck accident driver’s driving licence was cancelled. It transpires from perusal of Ex.C-8  the order date for suspend the driving licence mentioned as 17.12.2019. In this context, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that the concerned transport authority, Faridkot passed an order in Ex.C-8 for suspend the driving licence  (supra) of the driver  after the accident i.e. 17.12.2019 ten months and seven days. The person who seeks equity must do equity.

10.           To trace out the veracity of truth, this Commission has minutely examined  Ex.OP1/3 consent letter dated 07.01.2020 duly executed by the complainant. From this angle, “Admission is the best evidence” . We feel that both the parties are bound and comply with the utmost important document which is Ex.OP1/3. Moreover,  the doctrine of estoppel is fully applicable in the present case in hand. During arguments, learned counsel for the OP relied upon  judgment pronounced by  Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Revision Petition No.2024 of 2012 decided on 12.04.2013 titled as  “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Luxmi Food”  and Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Commission in First Appeal  No.10 of 2014 decided on 04.05.2015 titled as “Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pooja and others”. This Commission has examined in length the referred judgments produced by the OP. The facts of the above referred judgments are different as compared to the present case in hand.

Per contra, learned counsel for complainant has relied upon the referred judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,  in Civil Appeal no.2257 of 2008 decided on 31.03.2008 titled as  “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Geeta Bhat& Others”  held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149- Owner of vehicle employing a driver- He is bound to make reasonable enquiry  whether the driver  had a valid driving licence- So far as  driving licence  of a professional driver is concerned, the owner of the vehicle, despite  taking reasonable  care, might have not been able to find  out as to whether the licence was a fake or not- He  is not expected to verify the genuineness  thereof from the Transport Officer.

11.           We feel that the insurance company received huge amount by way of premium and issue  the insurance policy to the innocent consumers frequently. On the other hand, Civil Society the Phenomenon is toward the insurance  Companies  are avoiding by one pretext  or another  to pay the liability of insurance claim to the aggrieved consumers, we feel that  an insurance contract is known as a contract of “ uberrima fides” based  on “ utmost good faith” which is fully applicable in the present complaint. This is a fit case to redress the grievances of the complainant. The Consumer Commissions are duty bound to provide justice to the deserving consumers. The Consumer Commission redresses the grievances through  justice to the innocent consumers, but the justice seems to be.  The IDV value as agreed by the complainant in the light of  Ex.OP1/3 is liable to  pay to the complainant. While on the other hand as per Ex.OP1/2 motor survey report the net loss assessed by the surveyor of Rs.5,74,805/- which is similar to the consent letter duly executed by the complainant  on 07.01.2020.

12.           Resultantly,  keeping  in view  the peculiar  facts and  circumstances  of the  complaint  in hand  and with  careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record and in the light of decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  of India, we partly allow  the complaint  of the complainant and direct the OP to pay to the complainant  an  amount of Rs.5,74,805/- as agreed by the complainant IDV of the damaged vehicle in question.  Further, the Op is directed to pay  a consolidated sum of Rs.10000/- on account  of compensation and litigation expenses. This  order be complied with by OP within 45 days  from the  receipt of copy  of this order.   

13.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

14.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Announced.                                              

                                March14, 2024

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President

BBS/-