Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member and
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
versus
Akshay Deep Singh – Respondent
Revision Petition No.336 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 20/09/2016 in Appeal No. 834/2015 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 6.7.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Effective driving Licence – Proper knowledge of Repudiation – Repudiation justified - A contract of Insurance between the concerned parties is on the principle of “Uberrima fides” i.e. absolute good faith on part of both the contracting sides. From the Insurance Policy (Annexure A-1), it is seen that the Insurance coverage was applicable in the event of an accident subject to the condition that the vehicle at the relevant time was being driven by “any person including the Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of an accident and is not dis-qualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.” – Thus, the reason for repudiation had been well known to the Complainant almost a year before he approached the District Forum, he could have procured an appropriate evidence from his side to prove that the original licence purportedly issued from Hyderabad was not fake, or at least he could have made out a case that he had in good faith assumed that the licence in question was genuine – Also, Complainant did not adopt either of these two courses and has even failed to appear or contest the present proceedings in spite of having been validly notified several years ago, and also having been given lumpsum costs to enable him to travel and bear his sundry expenses in contesting these proceedings – On facts, Repudiation is justified, Revision allowed, impugned order set aside. [Paras 6 to 18].
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against Respondent/Complainant challenging the impugned Order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, in First Appeal bearing No. 834 of 2015. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal, in Complaint No. 69/13.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant being the registered owner of Vehicle TATA LPT - 909 bearing registration No. HR-64-6107 had insured the said vehicle with the Opposite Party at Kaithal from 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.01.2012 while going from Ladwa to Kurukshetra and was badly damaged. The Opposite Party was informed at the earliest and the damaged vehicle was inspected by its Surveyors. It was the case of the Complainant that the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time namely, Ramdhan S/o Mewa Singh R/o ViII., Reherian Tehsil & District Kaithal, was holding a valid license No. 61164 dated 27.11.1986 originally issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad (AP). The Complainant kept visiting the Opposite Party for release of the claim amount that was spent on repair of the damaged vehicle i.e. Rs.2,28,319/- and Rs.3,000/- for crane loading. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 06.09.2012 on the ground that the Driving License could not be found and License Authority, Hyderabad, orally clarified to the agents of the Opposite Party that the above Driving License was not issued in Hyderabad and during investigation, it was found that the above Driving License is fake. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim illegally, arbitrarily and without any cause, and seeking payment of Rs.2,31,319/- spent on repairs with interest, Compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,500/- as Fees of Counsel.
3. The Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended by the Opposite Party that it registered the claim promptly and T.P. Singh & Co., an independent Company was appointed as Surveyor and Loss Assessor for final survey who, vide Report dated 03.03.2012, assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs.1,85,579/-. It was contended that the original Driving License no. 61164/LA/Hyderabad was shown to be issued from Hyderabad. Accordingly, Mr. K. Ramachander Rao, an independent Investigator from Hyderabad was deputed to verify the said Driving License from LA Hyderabad, who, vide his Report bearing No. NIA/RO/File No.201/2012/13 dated 12.04.2013 reported that the Driving License was not issued in Hyderabad Zone, Secunderabad Zone and Ranga Reddy Zone of RTA offices and during investigation, the Driving License was found to be fake. It was also contended that even the Branch Office, Kaithal vide letter dated 08.08.2012 asked the Complainant to intimate from which RTA Zone, Hyderabad, the Driving License No. 61164/96 was issued but the Complainant failed to give any response. It was further the case of the Opposite Party that the driver Ram Dhan was the resident of Village Chandan, Distt Jind, Haryana, and he had allegedly obtained the Driving License from LA Hyderabad. Reliance was also placed on Section 9 Clause 1(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the judgement of this Commission in ‘Jai Parkash Goyal v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’ in Revision Petition bearing No. 408 of 2010 decided on 11.03.2010. Hence, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 06.09.2012 on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driver’s license at the time of accident. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with special costs.
4. The Ld. Distric
Contract of Insurance - A contract of Insurance between the concerned parties is on the principle of “Uberrima fides” i.e. absolute good faith on part of both the contracting sides.
The burden of proof lies with the insurer to justify claim repudiation, and lack of supporting evidence leads to a judgment in favor of the claimant.
Burden of Proof – The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case.
If application of renewal of motor vehicle licence is made within 30 days of date of its expiry, licence continues to be effective & valid without a break as renewal dates back to date of its expiry.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
