F.A.No.579  OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.1051 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD 

Between:

Yerra                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Appellant/complainant

1.   The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance

2.   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager

                                                                                                Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant              M/  Kota Sameer Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent           M/s

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                        &

                        SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

                        FRIDAY THE TWENTY   DAY OF MARCH

                                   TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri

                                        ***

1.             The complainant is the appellant. The appeal is filed questioning the legality of the order dismissing the complaint. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise of lack of evidence in the form of driving licence of the appellant’s son and his friend.

2.             The appellant insured his Motor   bearing number AP-9BW-1643.The appellant insured his vehicle with the respondent-insurance company under insurance policy bearing number 3005/10466089/10164/00 for the period commencing from 13.10.2009 till 12.10.2010.  The motor   met with an accident on 29.08.2010  when lorry bearing  number KA-01-4397 hit it  at   registered case in crime number 449 of 2010 against the driver of the lorry. The Motor   sustained damage in the accident. The appellant submitted claim along with estimate of Rs.42

3.             The respondent resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant has not impleaded the financier of the vehicle as party to the complaint.  It is contended that the accident occurred on 29.08.2010 and the appellant informed the respondent about the accident on 30.08.2010. As per the FIR, the appellant’s son Raghu was driving the motor cycle at the time of the accident and he had not possessed valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The appellant informed the respondent about the damage caused to the motor cycle after shifting it to

4.             It is contended that the surveyor appointed by the respondent-insurance company assessed the loss sustained by the appellant at `26,091/-. The surveyor reported that the friend of the appellant’s son Raghu was driving the vehicle and he did not possess driving licence and that even if the appellant’s son was driving the vehicle he was possessing learning licence and as such the claim was repudiated.

5.             The appellant had filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1  A2. The Legal Manager of the second respondent- insurance company had filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex B1 and B2.

6.             Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the   has filed the appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is disproportionate to the weight of evidence and facts of the case and that the District Forum failed to consider that there is no averment in the complaint as regards the fried of the appellant’s son driving the motor cycle at the time of the accident.  It is  respondent –insurance company admitted in his affidavit that the appellant furnished copy of his son’s driving licence and the appellant along with the appeal has filed true copy of driving licence of his son and driving licence of his son’s friend.

7.             The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?

8.             The motor cycle belonging to the appellant and its insurance coverage by the insurance policy as also the vehicle meeting with an accident on 29.08.2010 at   is  not disputed. The appellant claimed for the repairs of an amount of `42,620/-. The ground of repudiation of the claim is the driver not possessing driving licence to drive the Motor Cycle. The copy of the driving licence marked as ExA5 would show that he was authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle.

9.                 The appellant’s son lodged complaint with the Police,

10.            The respondent-insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that as per the FIR, the friend of the appellant’s son was driving the motor cycle and he was not possessing driving licence at the time of the accident .The respondent had drawn support for repudiation of the claim from the observation made by the surveyor in his report that the driver of the motor cycle had not provided him with a copy of his driving licence.

11.            Along with the appeal, the appellant filed copy of the driving licence of his son’s friend who stated to have driven the motor cycle at the time of the accident.   The appellant has contended that the appellant by producing true copy of the driving licence of his son’s friend and that of his son, met with the requirement of consequences arising out of the circumstances either the appellant’s son was driving the motor cycle or the friend of the appellant’s son was driving the motor The copy of driving licence of the appellant’s son’s friend would answer any discretion of violation which is made the basis to repudiate the claim of the appellant.

12.            The appellant claimed and amount of Rs.42  assessed by the surveyor is slightly higher than the estimate issued by   The surveyor assessed the loss at `26,091/-. We see no reason to deviate from the amount assessed as required to meet the repairing charges of the motor cycle. As such this Commission comes to conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed.

13.            In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum.  Consequently, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of `26,091/- together with costs of `3,000/- to the complainant.

                                                                                                                                                   MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                  MEMBER

                                                                   Dt.22.03.2013

కెఎంకె*