BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 19th July 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 65 / 2013
Konda Bhargavi, W/o Mudiyam Venkata Rami Reddy,
age 52 years, Government Teacher, Residing at
D.No. 3/673-1, Raja Reddy Street,
Kadapa Town and City. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The General Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Govt. of India undertaking registered and
Head Office at D.No. A-25/27, Asif Ali Road,
New Delhi – 110 002.
2. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch office, Opp. To District Court, Kadapa – 516 001.
3. The Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional office, 6-3-874, Snehalatha, Post Box No. 45,
Green Land, Begumpeta, Hyderabad – 500 016. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 15-07-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri B. Dwarakanatha Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for O.P.3 and O.P.1 & O.P.2 are called absent and set exparte on 14-3-2014 and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) To pay total value of insured declared vehicle amount from the date of accident i.e from 5-9-2011 to till the date of realization Rs. 2,21,538/-.
(b) To pay Hire of the vehicle engaged by the complainant since 5-9-2011 to 9-2-2012 i.e. 5 ½ months, at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- p.m total is Rs. 66,000/-.
(c) to pay parking and estimation charges as estimated by KUN United Motors Pvt. Ltd., Anantapur, dt. 9-1-2012 for Rs. 19,854/-
(d) To pay towards compensation and mental agony of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(e) to pay costs of the complaint Rs. 10,000/- total amount claimed in all counts i.e. a to e is Rs. 4,17,392/-
(f) Interest at the rate as deemed fit by Hon’ble forum.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that, the complainant purchased a vehicle and the said vehicle was duly registered in the name of the complainant with registering authorities of motor vehicle, Road Transport Authority, Kadapa bearing No. AP 04 P : 4873. The said vehicle was duly insured in the name of the complainant with the O.P’s on 11-5-2011 the said policy bearing No. 432706/31/2012/519.
3. The complainant further stated that the vehicle was usually driven by her son Mr. M. Naresh, S/o M. Venkatarami Reddy. On 5-9-2011 the accident happened on the insured vehicle at National High Way, Nagasamudram Gate, Chenne Kothapalli Mandal, Annatapur District and Mr. Naresh, who was driving the vehicle died instantaneously on the spot itself and damages were caused to the insured vehicle which was insured with the O.P’s. The complainant made claim against the O.P’s the insured company rejected the claim stating that “as per the registration certificate is subject vehicle is registered as “motor car”, the vehicle was driven by Mr. Naresh, who is handicapped person and who is having driving license to drive “invalid carriage” only. As per R.C. extract obtained from the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa the vehicle is classified as motor car “Auto transmission vehicle” under clause of vehicle and there is no mention with regard to the special design of the vehicle for handicapped person. In view of the above quoted matter, the O.P.’s repudiated the claim of the petitioner. It is further stated that the definition of the motor car comes under section 2 (26) of the motor vehicle act 1988 is defined as “Any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle Omnibus road roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage”.
4. The complainant further stated that the said vehicle was originally designed by Hundai motors as “auto transmission motor vehicle” for physically handicapped and clear mention was made in the “DMS dealer management system” and repair orders and also that, the Kun Hundai motors Pvt. Ltd., vide the vehicle repair estimation, dt. 10-11-2011 and this estimation was given soon after the accident on 5-9-2011 and it is crystal clear that model of the accident vehicle as Santro Xing auto transmission motor car specially designed to physically handicapped persons and was driven by Mr. M. Naresh who was physically handicapped person and physically handicapped driving license holder (License No. DLFAP004105092008, dt. 29-7-2008 of R.T.A., Kadapa) at the time of accident.
5. It is further stated that the accident vehicle is auto transmission vehicle meant for physically handicapped person was not noted by the Registration authority at the time of registration by mistake. This fact cannot be ignored by the insuring O.P’s by making insured by payment for the accident vehicle. The accident vehicle is auto transmission vehicle was seen by the two insurance company surveyors at the time of physical verification and they failed to note this fact with the malafide intentions of the repudiating the claim. It is further stated that the surveyor know the fact that the accident vehicle auto transmission vehicle for the physically handicapped persons, they ignored it. They based their report on the registration certificate of the vehicle and called the vehicle as “motor vehicle”. The original nature of the vehicle i.e. Auto Transmission vehicle. The claimant informed to the insurance company that the accident vehicle was auto transmission vehicle for physically handicapped persons and driven by the physically handicapped license holder Mr. M. Naresh and these facts were not taken into consideration the O.P.’s repudiated the claim on invalid grounds.
6. The complainant submitted an application before motor claim forum on 26-12-2011 and received by the Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa on 25-1-2012 and the O.P’s repudiated the claim on 9-2-2012, after that the complainant issued legal notice through her advocate on 12-3-2012 and same is received by the O.P’s on 15-3-2012 but they did not act till today. Hence, this complaint is filed.
7. The O.P’s filed counter and admitted that the complainant is the owner of the car bearing No. AP 04 P : 4873 and insured with the O.P’s company and that vehicle met with an accident on 5-9-2011 near Nagasamundram gate, Chenne Kothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District and that the vehicle was driven by complainant’s son M. Naresh by the time of accident. The O.P’s also admitted that the said M. Naresh was a physically handicapped person with the amputation of right leg above the knee during the year 2007 itself and that he was equipped with Jaipur artificial leg and he hold driving license bearing No. DLFAP004105092008 date of issue was 29-7-2008 and he was authorized to drive “invalid carriage” only.
8. The O.P’s further stated that the car of the complainant is a Hundai make namely Santro XP and the class of the vehicle is “motor car”. As per R.C dt. 12-6-2008 issued by RTA, Kadapa the complainant is the 2nd owner of the car. The 1st owner / purchaser of the car was one Anuradha Datta Ravindra of Bangalore and the class of the vehicle was shown “LMV motor car” and the date of 1st registration was 6-3-2004 and the owner has lost the original R.C. She has obtained a duplicate R.C. from registration authority, Bangalore on 25-10-2007, then after the complainant has purchased the said car for which R.T.O., Bangalore Central has issued NOC to R.T.O., Kadapa for registration of the vehicle at Kadapa. Accordingly, the R.C. was issued infavour of the complainant for the said vehicle on 12-6-2008. It is pertinent to observe that either the registering authorities both Bangalore, Karnataka State and at Kadapa, A.P. state does not recognize or considered the vehicle as an “invalid carriage”. But it is recognized as “motor car”. Thus it is clear that the driver / complainant’s son M. Naresh did not possess a driving license to drive LMV motor car but possess a driving license to drive “invalid carriage” only.
9. The O.P.’s further stated that it is a condition precedent in the subject policy issued for the vehicle in favour of the complainant that “driver’s clause – any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident, such a person satisfies the requirements rule 3 of the Central Motor vehicles Rule 1989”. It is also stated that an invalid carriage is defined under section 2 (18) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, as “invalid carriage means a motor vehicle specially designed and constructed and not merely adopted for the use of a person suffering from some physical defect or disability and used solely by such a person”. It is clear that an invalid carriage vehicle is a vehicle which would be specially designed and manufactured by the manufacturer for the usage by a disabled person. It is also stated that a motor car is define under section 2 (26) of the M.V. Act 1988 as “Motor car means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, Omini bus, road roller, tractor, motor cycle or “invalid carriage”. Thus it is clear that a motor car is not an “invalid carriage” as defined under M.V. Act 1988”.
10. It is clear that the vehicle of the complainant was allowed to be driven by a person who is not duly qualified or authorized to drive the vehicle and the complainant has violated the main condition precedent of the policy. Hence, the O.P’s repudiated her claim vide their letter dt. 9-2-2012. The O.P’s denied allegations of the complainant is that vide registering the vehicle the R.T.A have ignored the fact of the vehicle being an “invalid carriage”.
11. The O.P’s further stated that the complainant did not produced the original invoice or manufacture manual of the vehicle which disclosed the original nature of the vehicle but she simply relying upon a “dealer management system” repair order and contending that the vehicle is an auto transmission vehicle. It is a self-serving and self-made format of a dealer Trident Auto mobiles Pvt. Ltd., which cannot be considered since it is not pertained to the manufacturer and also contended that the name of the customer is shown as a “Srinivas Seshadri”, instead of the complainant Konda Bhargavi and the date of repair order is shown as 01-3-2012 to 18-3-2012. But the complainant did not filed any documents that the vehicle was repaired. The complainant has filed an estimation for the repairs of the vehicle issued by Kun United Motors Pvt. Ltd., Anantapur, dt. 10-11-2011. The said estimation is “supplementary estimation”. Referred documents on which the complainant is relying upon or self-fabricated and brought up documents for purpose of her claim. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s. Hence, dismiss the complaint with costs.
12. To prove her case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents which are marked Ex. A1 to A13 and on behalf of the Opposite parties filed counter, written arguments along with documents are marked as Ex. B1 to B6.
13. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
iii. To what relief?
14. Point Nos. 1 & 2. According to the complaint, complainant has purchased a vehicle bearing No. AP 04 P : 4873 duly insured with O.P’s concerned and it was registered with registering authorities of motor vehicles Road Transport Authority, Kadapa in the name of the complainant Konda Bhargavi. As per registration certificate the subject vehicle is registered as a “motor car”. She insured her vehicle with the O.P’s having with policy bearing No.432706/31/2012/519, dt. 11-5-2011. The complainant’s son M. Naresh, S/o Venkata Rami Reddy was usually driven the vehicle and the said vehicle while driving M. Naresh the son of the complainant, who was driving the vehicle died at the spot and damages were caused to the insured vehicle. As per the claim No. 432706/31/2012/000049 under No. 432706/31/2012/519 the complainant made claim and addressed a letter to the insurance company. The insurance company rejected the claim stating that ”as per the registration certificate the subject vehicle is registered as a motor car, the vehicle was driven by M. Naresh, who is a handicapped person and who is having driving license to drive invalid carriage only. As per the R.C. extract obtained from the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa the vehicle is classified as motor car. “Auto transmission vehicle” under clause of vehicles and there is no mention with regard to the special design of the vehicle for handicapped person.
15. The contention of the complaint is that the accident vehicle No. AP 04 P : 4873 was originally designed by the Hundai Motors. As auto transmission motor vehicle for physically handicapped and clearly mentioned in the “DMS dealer management system” and repair orders and also the Kun Hundai Motors Pvt. Ltd., vide vehicle repair estimation dt. 10-11-2011 and the estimation was given soon after the accident on 5-9-2011. The model of the accident vehicle is SantroXP auto transmission motor car specially designed for physically handicapped person and was driven by Mr. M. Naresh, who was physically handicapped person and having physically handicapped driving license holder (license No. DLFAP004105092008, dt. 29-7-2008) at the time of accident and also contended that the time of registration the registration authority was not noted that the accident vehicle is auto transmission vehicle meant for physically handicapped person. The accident vehicle was seen by the two insurance company surveyors at the time of physical verification and they failed to note the fact, they ignored it. They based their report on the registration certificate of the vehicle and called the vehicle as “motor car”.
16. The further contention of the complainant is that the insurance company was informed by the claimants with clear evidence that the accident vehicle was auto transmission vehicle for physically handicapped persons and driven by the physically handicapped license holder Mr. Naresh Kumar at the time of accident and these facts were not taken in consideration. While passing orders on the claim and the claim was repudiated on the invalid grounds as per the policy the claimant is having every right to claim for their damages concerned on the said vehicle.
17. On the other hand the O.P’s admitted that the complainant is the owner of the car bearing No. AP 04 P : 4873 and insured with O.P. company and the said vehicle met with an accident on 5-9-2011 near Nagasamudram gate, Chenne Kothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. At the time of accident the vehicle was driven by the complainant’s son M. Naresh, who was physically handicapped person with amputation of right leg above the knee during the year 2007 itself and that he was equipped with the Jaipur artificial leg and he holds a driving license bearing No. DLFAP004105092008, dt. 29-7-2008 and he was authorized to drive “invalid carriage” only.
18. The contention of the O.P’s is that the car of the complainant is a Hundai make namely Santro XP and the class of vehicle is “motor car” as per R.C. dt. 12-6-2008 issued by R.T.A., Kadapa and the complainant is the 2nd owner of the car the 1st owner of the car was one Anuradha Datta Ravindra of Bangalore and the class of vehicle was shown LMV motor car and the date of 1st registration was 6-3-2004 and she was lost the original R.C and she has obtained a duplicate R.C. from the registering authority, Bangalore on 25-7-2007. The complainant has purchased the said car for which RTO Bangalore central has issued NOC to RTO, Kadapa for registration of the vehicle at Kadapa and RC was issued in favour of the complainant on 12-6-2008. The O.P.’s further contended that the registering authorities both at Bangalore of Karnataka state and Kadapa of A.P. State did not recognize or considered the vehicle as an “invalid carriage”. It is recognized as a “motor car”. The complainant’s son M. Naresh possessed a driving license to drive “invalid carriage” only. It is a condition precedent in the subject policy issued for the vehicle in favour of the complainant that “driver’s driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989”. An invalid carriage is defined U/s 2 (18) of M.V. Act 1988 as “invalid carriage means a motor vehicle specially designed and constructed” and also contended that U/s 26 of the M.V. Act 1988 “Motor car means any motor vehicle other than transport vehicle Omini bus, Road roller, Tractor, Motor cycle or invalid carriage”. Hence, it is clear that a motor car is not invalid carriage as defined under the M.V. Act 1988.
19. The O.P’s further contended that the complainant did not produced original invoice or manual of the vehicle which discloses the original name of manufacture of the vehicle.
20. We have gone through the contentions and documents filed by the both parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of the Santro car bearing No. AP 04 P : 4873 and insured with the O.P’s company under Ex. A1. As per Ex. A8 i.e. FIR the said vehicle met with an accident on 5-9-2011 near Nagasamudram gate, Chenne Kothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District. At the time of the accident the vehicle was driven by the complainant’s son M. Naresh, who was handicapped person and in that accident the complainant’s son M. Naresh was died on the spot and damages were caused to the insured vehicle as seen Ex. A3. The complainant intimated to the O.P’s as above said accident. As per Ex. A4 the complainant made claim against O.P’s and the O.P’s repudiated the claim as per Ex. A5 stating that as per registration certificate the subject vehicle is registered as motor car as per Ex. B3 and B4. The vehicle was driven by M. Naresh, a handicapped person who is having driving license to drive “invalid carriage” only as per R.C extract obtained from RTA, Kadapa the vehicle is classified as motor car under class of vehicle and there is no mention with regard to special design vehicle for handicapped person. Since the vehicle is registered as a motor car. The driver should possess LMV driving license whereas driven who was on the wheels at the time of accident is having license to drive “invalid carriage” only, as per the copy of driving license and extract of driving license issued by RTA, the driver is having license to drive invalid carriage only an invalid carriage is a special designed and constructed vehicle for the use of person suffering from some physically defect or disability to be used solely by such person.
21. The O.P’s contended that the complainant did not produced the original invoice or manual of the vehicle which discloses original nature of manufacture of the vehicle. On the other hand the complainant contended that the said vehicle was originally designed by Hundai motors as auto transmission vehicle for physically handicapped and clearly mentioned was made in the DMS dealer management system and vehicle repair estimation i.e. Kun Hundai Motors Pvt. Ltd., as seen Ex. A11 and B1 vehicle repair estimations and Ex. A12 “DMS dealer management system” these documents not acceptable and not sufficient proofs that the vehicle is auto transmission vehicle and the complainant not filed vehicle repairing bills to prove the vehicle of the complainant and she filed only estimations. Hence, the contention of the O.P’s tenable.
22. The complainant further contended that the accident vehicle is auto transmission vehicle meant for physically handicapped person was not noted by the registration authority at the time of registration by mistake. In this regard we obtained opinion of Asst. Motor vehicle Inspector by name N.R. Hemanth Kumar, on dt. 15-7-2014, as per his statement “it is true that either the vehicle is an auto transmission or non-auto transmission vehicle the vehicle at the time of registration it will mention as motor car. If it is specially designed vehicle for disabled, it will be registered as invalid carriage. The specially designed vehicle should other than a motor car”. In this aspect the complainant did not produced any original invoice or original manual to prove that the vehicle is auto transmission vehicle, it is also not proved specially designed and constructed vehicle for disabled persons and also not registered as a “invalid carriage” as seen Ex. B3 & B4.
23. As per above discussion the complainant did not proved the deficiency in service of O.P’s as such the answer is against the complainant.
24. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 19th July, 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Witness examined on behalf of the forum / Court.
CW1 examined on 15-7-2014.
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 P/c of insurance policy.
Ex. A2 Computer pollution control certificate.
Ex. A3 Letter of insurance given by the complainant regarding the accident.
Ex. A4 Letter requested for claim of the said vehicle as per the certificate given by
the insurance concerned.
Ex. A5 Reply notice of repudiation of the claimant by the Branch Manager, the
oriental insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa on 9-2-2014.
Ex. A6 The advocate to the claimants notice dt. 12-3-2012.
Ex. A7 Postal receipts and acknowledgement cards four in number.
Ex. A8 FIR copy death certificate and family member certificate.
Ex. A9 Letter of insurance Co. on 16-7-2013 requesting to settlement of
the claim.
Ex. A10 Details claim statement.
Ex. A11 Cash invoice and vehicle requires estimation copy.
Ex. A12 DMS dealer management system repairs order copy.
Ex. A13 Original certificate of disability issued by the Govt. of A.P.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 Copy of claim form dt. 26-11-2011 submitted by the petitioner.
Ex. B2 Copy of supplementary estimation issued by Kum United Motors.
Ex. B3 Copy of certificate of Registration issued by Transport department, Govt.
of Karnataka.
Ex. B4 Copy of certificate of Registration extract issued by Additional Registering
authority, Kadapa.
Ex. B5 Copy of driving license extract of M. Naresh issued by Additional Licensing
authority, Kadapa.
Ex. B6 Copy of letter of repudiation dt. 0-2-2012 issued by the respondent
company.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) Sri B. Dwarakanatha Rao, Advocate for complainant.
2) Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for O.P.3
3) The General Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Govt. of
India undertaking registered and Head Office at D.No.
A-25/27, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi – 110 002.
4) The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch
Office, Opp. To District Court, Kadapa – 516 001
B.V.P.
