DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 195 of 28.5.2018

                                      Decided on: 4.2.2021

Gurpritam Singh S/o Sh.Yashpal Singh H.No.1068,Jagdish Colony, Rajpura.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

United India Insurance Co. through its Sr.Branch Manager, Rajpura.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Rakesh Malhotra, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OP.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This  complaint is filed by Gurpritam Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against United India Insurance Co.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-11-BY-7001 and the same was being plied by the complainant for earning his livelihood after having loan from the bank. It is averred that the truck was comprehensively insured with the OP for the period from 16.5.2016 to 15.5.2017 for a sum of Rs.27,55,000/-.It is further averred that Sh.Yashpal Singh S/o Amir Chand was working as driver on the said truck. It is further averred that said Sh.Yashpal Singh has retired from Indian Army and was working there as Seopy Driver  and after retirement he started working as driver on the truck owned by his son at a salary of Rs.8000/-per month.
3. It is averred that unfortunately said truck met with an accident on 19.11.2016 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Solan when Sh.Yashpal Singh was on the wheels of the truck. Complainant immediately informed the OP and submitted all the desired documents. OP deputed surveyor Sh.Bansal who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5lacs, but the OP repudiated the claim on the ground of the validity of the driving licence.
4. It is averred that the driver of the truck who retired from the Indian Army got the driving licnece from Licencing Authority, Kokrajhar, Assam during his service through Army authorities and was valid at the time of accident. The OP has also got verified the validity of licence from the competent authority.
5. It is further averred that after the retirement, Yashpal Singh got issued another driving licence from licencing authority Patiala with the impression that the driving licence issued by licencing authority Kokrajhar was issued to him while he was in the army and to drive the vehicle after retirement he has to get driving licence from civil authorities to enable him to do the job of driver and with good intention supplied both the driving licences to the OP but the OP in  order to get the benefit of the innocence of the complainant and his father rejected the claim on the ground that the driver of the truck was having two licences, whereas both the licences were got verified by the OP from the concerned authorities and found to be genuine. By rejecting the claim the OP committed deficiency in service on its part. On this back ground of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of damage caused to the truck; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/-as litigation expenses and also to pay interest @12% per annum .
6. Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply and has raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated vide letter dated 12.1.2018 on the ground that the driving licnece provide by the complainant to Sh.Rajesh Kumar surveyor and loss assessor, Panchkula bearing No.PB-11-20090163104 issued by licencing authority Patiala was valid from 8.5.2009 to 9.10.2016 was not valid on the date of accident. The insured also furnished a second driving licence issued by D.T.O.Kokrajhar, Assam bearing No.14955/KOJ/T valid from 22.12.2010 to 18.11.2018 but holding of two licence is barred U/s 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act and also amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy; that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present case against the OP and is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merits, the insurance of the truck in question is admitted for the period from 16.5.2016 to 15.5.2017 with the IDV value of Rs.27,55 lacs.It is further submitted that on receipt of intimation of loss on 15.11.2016 the OP deputed Sh.Rajesh Kumar approved IRDA surveyor and loss assessor, Panchkula to assess the loss who in his report dated 13.2.2017 has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,46,941.30 and he further submitted that the complainant submitted driving licence which has already been expired on 9.10.2016 but the date of accident is 24.10.2016.The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 12.1.2018.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Krishan Kumar, Deputy Manager,Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kumar alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11.  The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing No.PB-11BY-7001.The ld. counsel further argued that the truck was insured or the period from 16.5.2016 to 15.5.2017 for the sum of Rs.27,55,000/-with  the OP.The ld. counsel further argued that Sh.Yashpal Singh was working as driver had retired as Seopy Driver  from Indian Army and he was taking salary of Rs.8000/-per month. The ld. counsel further argued that said truck met with an accident on 19.11.2016 within the jurisdiction of Solan when the same was driven by Yashpal Singh driver. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant immediately informed the OP and submitted all the documents. The OP deputed Sh.Bansal,who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5lacs.The ld. counsel further argued that the claim was repudiated  on the ground of validity of the licence. The ld. counsel further argued that the driver who had retired from the Indian Army got the driving licence from Licencing Authority Kokrajhar,Assam during his service and said licence was valid on the date of accident. The ld. counsel further argued that unfortunately after retirement from Assam, he got issued licence from Licencing Authority, Patiala with the impression that the driving licence issued by Licencing Authority Kokrajhar was issued to him while he was in service in Army would not be valid in Punjab. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant and his father without any malafide intention supplied both the driving licence to the OP.The ld. counsel for the complainant relied upon the citations Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 1218 and  Parveen Kumar Vs. Sumitra Devi and others Vol.CLXXXI-(2016-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 255.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the driver was having two driving licence and as per Section 6 of Motor Vehicle Act, he is not entitled to hold two driving licence. He relied upon the citations Kewal Krishan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2013(2)CLT 614 and  Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2010(2)CPJ 183.
13. To prove this case, Gurpritam Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint and he has stated that the OP has repudiated the claim on the ground of validity of the driving licence,Ex.C1 is the repudiation letter dated 12.1.2018, Ex.C2 is the insurance policy, Ex.C3 is the licence issued by the State of Punjab,Ex.C4 is the licence issued by Govt. of Assam,Ex.C5 is the certificate of registfdation,Ex.C6 is the letter.
14. On the other hand, Sh.Krishan Kumar, Deputy Manager has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA.Ex.OPB is the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, Surveyor and Loss assessor,Ex.OP1  is policy,Ex.OP2 is the licence of driver Yashpal Singh of Assam State, Ex.OP3 is also licence renewed from Assam,Ex.OP4 is licence made from State of Punjab,Ex.OP5 is verification of licence from State of Punjab and it was valid from 10.10.2013 to 9.10.2018,Ex.OP6 is report of validity of licence made from Kokrajhar.It was valid uptill 18.11.2018,Ex.OP7 is repudiation letter,Ex.OP9 survey report.
15. As per version of the complainant he was the owner of truck bearing No.PB-11-BY-7001 and the same was being plied by him for earning his livelihood after having loan from the bank and said truck admittedly was insured with the OP from 16.5.2016 to 15.5.2017 for Rs.27,55,000/-.As per the complainant the truck was being driven by Yashpal Singh who was retired from Army and met with an accident on 19.11.2016.As per the written statement the claim was repudiated  because the driver was having  two driving licences  one made from Licencing Authority, Patiala. It was valid from 8.5.2009 to 4.10.2016 another licence made from Kokrajhar Assam and it was valid from 22.12.2010 to 18.11.2018. It is also pleaded that as per Section 6 of Motor Vehicle Act a person cannot hold two driving licence. The OP has also referred two judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh and the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi to fortify his case.
16. In the affidavit of Gurpritam Singh, he has deposed that neither he nor his father has got any malafide intention as they honestly supplied by the driving licence to the OP and the OP in order to get the benefit of  his innocence and his father rejected the claim on the ground that the driving was having two driving licence.
17. Both these driving licences were verified from concerned authorities by the OP. It is mentioned in the report of D.T.O. Patiala that driving licence No.PB-1120090163104 dated 8.5.2009 is in the name of Yashpal Singh s/o Amain Chand. It is for LMV/LMVCAB/MCWG and NT validity from 10.10.2013 to 9.10.2018 and TR validity from 10.10.2013 to 9.10.2016.
18. The licence which was issued from Kokrajhar was verified and report is Ex.OP6 and this valid from 19.11.2015 to 18.11.2018. It is valid for;

1. M/cycle
2. LMV
3. MMV
4. HMV only

19. Admittedly two driving licences were submitted by the complainant and verified by the OP vide reports, Exs.OP5 and OP6.Ex.C5 is the licence made from Patiala .In this , it is not mentioned that this valid for Heavy Motor Vehicle whereas trucks comes under HMV. The licence,Ex.OP6 which was valid till 18.11.2018 was made from Kokrajhar and as per the verification report, it was valid for Heavy Motor Vehicle.
20. So it is clear that Yashpal Singh was not authorities to drive heavy motor vehicle as per licence which was made from Patiala and report is Ex.OP5 and he is competent to drive heavy motor vehicle as per the report, Ex.OP6 of DTO, Kokrajhar. No doubt he was having two driving licence but he was authorized to drive HMV on the basis of driving licence issued from Assam. The complainant  has also attached copy of the licence which was made from Assam,Ex.C4 and as per the complainant Yashpal Singh was serving in the Army as Seopy  and he got issued the licence while he was serving in the state of Assam and he was the driver in the army.
21. So as per both the verification reports Sh.Yashpal Singh is competent to drive the truck on the basis of verification report Ex.OP6 of licence issued from Kokrajhar  and he was not allowed to drive truck on the basis of licence made from Punjab and verification report is Ex.OP5.In this verification report, it is not mentioned that this licence was also valid for HMV. So, it is clear that Sh.Yashpal Singh was having only one licence for driving HMV as such the law relied upon by the OP is not helpful to it.
22. The survey report is on the file and affidavit of surveyor Rajesh Kumar is also on the file. In the affidavit, it is deposed that net loss was Rs.4,46,941.30 and the report is Ex.OP9 on the file.
23. So due to our above discussion the complaint stands allowed and the OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,46,941.30 to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e.12.1.2018 till realization. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:4.2.2021         

                   Y.S.Matta         Vinod Kumar Gulati       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                    Member                 Member                                  President