Jindal Brothers vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/s. Jindal Brothers, in this complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act claims a sum of Rs. 7,02,333/- from the , the Oriental Insurance Company in respect of loss suffered on account of damage caused to the truck which was insured with the . Chassis of the truck was purchased by the in January 1991. Afterwards, the truck was registered with the District Transport Officer, Ludhiana vide Registration No. PB-10-B-9993. This vehicle was insured with the , the Insurance Company, on February, 14, 1992 for the period February 14, 1992 to February 13, 1993. On April 23, 1992 at about 10.00 p.m., the vehicle driven by Chanchal Singh son of Shri Faqir Chand left Ludhiana for Ghaziabad. The vehicle was loaded with spare parts of Hero Majestic. Mr. Onkar Dev was cleaner on the vehicle. On the next day, information was received by the that the vehicle had not reached the destination. An effort was made to locate it. Ultimately, a report was lodged with the Police, Division No. 5, Ludhiana on April 26, 1992. Intimation accordingly was sent to the at its branch office Ludhiana. Vide registered letter dated April 28, 1992 the was asked to send claim supported by affidavits. On May 11, 1992, directions were complied with.

THE Insurance Company appointed M/s. Bedi and Associates, Ludhiana as Investigator-cum-Loss Assessor in May, 1992. Necessary documents asked by them were supplied by the Complainant. THE Insurance Company informed the Complainant on February 25, 1993 that the papers were filed as Shri Chanchal Singh was not holding valid driving licence. Photo copy of the driving licence of Chanchal Singh was sent to the Insurance Company by the Complainant in May, 1993. The vehicle in dispute was recovered from the Bhakra Main Canal, Sondha by the police. It was given to the Complainant on Supardari. About Rs. 10,000/- were spent in lifting the vehicle. The Insurance Company was informed about it. Ultimately, on January 20, 1994 the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. Hence the present complaint was filed.

On notice of the complaint, the Insurance Company contested the same by filing written, inter alia, raising preliminary objection that Chanchal Singh was not holding a valid driving licence. Hence the Insurance Company was not liable for the loss. There was no deficiency in service rendered by the Insurance Company and the claim was repudiated bona fide. On merits, it was further asserted that when claim form was filled, the claimant showed complete ignorance about the driving licence as to whether the same was registered or renewed. Further reference was made to the report of the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company who had recorded statements of several witnesses in the village of Chanchal Singh aforesaid and had reported that no licence could be issued in favour of Chanchal Singh being a minor. It is further asserted that Shri Deb Prasad Saikia, Surveyor wrote a letter in February, 1994, to the District Transport Officer, Guwahati who reported that driving Licence No. C/6612/87 was not issued from that office. Thus, it was asserted that a fake driving licence, photocopy of which was produced by the Complainant, could not be relied upon and liability was denied.

THE parties were called upon to produce affidavits in support of their claims. Additional affidavit was filed on behalf of Opposite Party to day which has also been taken into consideration. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings, evidence produced alongwith documents submitted by the parties.

THE short question for consideration in this case is as to whether the Opposite Party bona fide repudiated the claim. If so, the Complainant should be referred to the Civil Court as disputed questions of fact are being raised in this case. On April 27, 1992 the Insurance Company was informed about the incident. Copy of F.I.R. dated April 26, 1992 was sent. THE Insurance Company called upon the Complainant to produce documents in support of his claim. Ultimately on May 10, 1993, photocopy of driving licence was sent to the Insurance Company. Before that, the matter had been investigated by the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company who had gone to the village of Chanchal Singh and recorded statements of persons available which also included father of Chanchal Singh. It is not necessary to refer to such statements, extracts of which have been quoted in the written statement. Suffice it to say that father of Chanchal Singh gave the age of Chanchal Singh as 20 years. It is probably on that count that the Insurance Company is now taking the stand that in fact no driving licence could be issued to Chanchal Singh at the time when he purports to have obtained such driving licence from the Registering Authority, Guwahati. Inspite of such a plea having been taken in the written statement, supported by affidavit of its Manager, the claimant did not produce any material about the actual date of birth of Chanchal Singh. It was sought to be argued by the Counsel for the Complainant that it was for the Insurance Company to collect such material if the driving licence was to be ignored, photo copy of which was produced, otherwise it was asserted that the original driving licence was in the truck itself which fell in the canal and was destroyed. THE matter does not end there. As already indicated, the Insurance Company secured an endorsement from the Registering Authority, Guwahati that no such driving licence was issued in the name of Chanchal Singh. If that is so, the action of Insurance Company, though slightly late in repudiating the claim, cannot be considered to be mala fide. No effort has been made by the Complainant in the present case to produce any other evidence that Chanchal Singh was in fact issued a driving licence by any Registering Authority. Mere pro duction of photocopy of driving licence as such in the circumstances of the case is not considered enough moresowhen actually the fact of issuing driving licence by the concerned authority is being hotly contested. Such a disputed question cannot be gone into in these proceedings which require voluminous evidence to be produced, particularly with respect to the age of Chanchal Singh and with respect to issuing a driving licence. Another question sought to be argued was that even if fake licence was produced but was renewed subsequently by different authorities appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the driving licence would remain valid. No comment on this point is being made as it is stated that in view of divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the matter has been taken to the Apex Court and is pending. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to approach the Civil Court, if so advised, for the relief. Complaint dismissed.