F.A.No.471/2012 against  C.C.No. 299/2011 , Dist. Forum-1,Hyderabad .   

Between:

N.Yella Reddy, S/o.Sri Narashi  Reddy,

Aged 59 years, Occ:Proprietor Suvarna,

Apparel and Fashion Exports Ltd.,

H.No.3-18, Gandhi Nagar Colony,

Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar Dist.                      …Appellant/

                                                                     Complainant

         And

1.The General Manager,

    Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

    570, Rectifier House, Naigum Cross Road,

    Wadela (W) Mumbai – 400 031.

2. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,

    Reliance General Insurance  Company Limited,

    H.No.6-4-8, 1^st  Floor, Vijetha Sanjeevani

    Opposite Gandhi Hospital, Musheerbad,

    Hyderabad – 500 020.                                   …Respondents/

                                                                        Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant     :      M/s.T.Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for the respondents  :     Mr.N.Mohan Krishna     

QUORUM:   SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,

                                         AND

                    SRI S.BHUJANGA  RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

               TUESDAY, THE   TWENTY  NINTH DAY OF  OCTOBER,      

                              TWO THOUSAND  THIRTEEN .

Oral Order: (Per  Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)           

                                        ***

        The unsuccessful complainant filed the above said appeal  against the order dt.22.05.2012  of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad  made in C.C.No.299/2011, whereunder the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 

The case of the appellant/complainant  as set out in the complaint in brief is as follows:

The complainant is the owner of the  mini bus bearing no.AP-22-X-2305. The complainant obtained Package Policy bearing no. 1804792340003227 and the same was in force from 20.2.2010 to mid night of 19.2.2011.

        While so, on 16.7.2010 at 00.30 A.M.   the vehicle met with an accident. After the incident, the complainant lodged  a complaint with Balanagar police and the same was also informed to the opposite parties.  The S.I. of  Police of  Balanagar    conducted panachanama of the   place of  accident and thereafter, the vehicle was sent to the garage for repairs.  The total expenditure of repairs of the vehicle came to Rs.1,44,769/-.

        The complainant made a claim before the opposite parties for the said amount of Rs.1,44,769/-.  The opposite parties repudiated the claim, on 31.08.2010 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle is not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident, which is not  tenable under law. The driver of the vehicle  Mr.Jahangir is having valid driving licence and the same was submitted along with the claim papers. The opposite parties have not properly considered the driving license and erroneously repudiated the claim, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties filed counter/written version contending that after receiving the claim form,  from the complainant claiming a total sum of Rs.1,44,759, towards the damages to the said  mini bus  and  after perusing the said documents, the opposite parties have noticed that since the driver of the said vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident and having fully acquainted with the said facts, the owner  has entrusted the vehicle to such a driver in violation of the terms and conditions  of the policy, besides the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and repudiated the complainant’s claim. Thus, the repudiation made by the opposite party is perfectly valid and justified under law. Since there is no deficiency  in service, the complainant is not  entitled  to the claim and the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

        During the course of enquiry by the District Forum , in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the opposite parties,  its Deputy Manager (Legal) C.Ram Mohan filed  his evidence affidavit and no documents were marked. 

        Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle  did not possess the valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and consequently, dismissed the complaint without costs. 

        Aggrieved  by the said order of the  District Forum, the appellant/ complainant preferred the above appeal urging that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. That the District Forum ought to have seen that the accident occurred due to act of  god and that there was no negligence on the part of the  driver. That the  District Forum ought to have seen that in Ex.A6  i.e. registration certificate of the vehicle, it is clearly mentioned that the subject vehicle is meant for personal use only and that the vehicle is only meant for private services, since the driver  had valid driving licence    for LMV under non transport category and that  the District Forum ought to have   seen that in Ex.A4 licence, the driver is permitted to drive the vehicle namely auto rickshaw, motor cab( it  means LMV) under transport category and motor cab comes under the category of LMV. The appellant/complainant  finally prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order. 

We  heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record. 

        Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned  order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law? 

        It is an admitted fact that the complainant insured his vehicle i.e. mini bus bearing no. AP.AP-22-X-2305 with the opposite party Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., under insurance policy bearing no. 1804792340003227 and the same was in force from 20.2.2010 to mid night of 19.2.2011. The fact that the vehicle met with an accident on 16.07.2010  at 00.30 a.m.   hours,  in the outskirts of Rangareddy Guda Village, is not seriously disputed by the opposite party.  In addition to that, the said fact is proved by the evidence affidavit of the complainant coupled with Ex.A5 copy of Panchanama. 

        It is also an admitted fact that the complainant sent a claim form  to the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.1,44,759/-  towards the damages to the said mini bus and that the said claim of the complainant was repudiated by the  opposite parties on the ground that the driver of the said vehicle was not  holding valid driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident  and that the owner has entrusted the said vehicle to such driver in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, besides the provisions of MV Act.

        Now the  question for consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties is valid under law?

        The contention of the appellant/complainant is that the driver Mr.S.K.Jahangir is having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.  In support of his case, the complainant filed Ex.A4, copy of the driving licence issued in the name of  the Driver S.K.Jahangir. In Ex.A4, copy of the driving licence,under the clause of the ‘class of vehicle’ and ‘validity’  it is mentioned as :

                                   Class of Vehicle         Validity

Non-Transport          AR,LMV,MCWG        10.07.2020          

        Transport                 AR, Motor Cab         16.03.2012

        Date of Issue            11.07.20000

 From  Ex.A4 it is clear that the driver of the vehicle  had valid and effective driving licence to drive the AR (Auto Rikshaw)  and Motor Cab under transport category and AR, LMV, MCWG under non transport category.   There can be no dispute that the Motor Cab   comes under the category of LMV. In column no.2 of Ex.A6 ‘vehicle class’ is mentioned as private service vehicle upto 13 seats-LMV   and ‘unladen weight’ of the vehicle is mentioned as 2020 kgs. In Ex.A6  it is clearly mentioned that the said vehicle is meant for personal use only.      The ‘gross vehicle weight’ is mentioned as 3550 kgs. Therefore, the vehicle is meant for only private  service  and the driver had valid driving license for LMV under  Non Transport Category.   Ex.A7 is the copy of  permit   in respect of private service vehicle. 

            As per   Section 4 of  and sub section 41 of  Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (59 of 1988)  the table specifying the types of  motor vehicles – private service vehicle, registered in the name of  an  individual and if declared to  be used by him solely for personal, is classified as non transport vehicle. 

        Sec.2, Sub Sec.21 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 defines “light motor vehicle” as under:

        “ ‘light motor vehicle’ means a transport vehicle or omnibus  the gross  vehicle weight  either of which  or a motor car or  tractor  or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which , does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.”

As stated above  unladen weight of the subject vehicle i.e. mini bus is 2020 kgs and the gross weight  is 3550 kgs. which is far less than the limit prescribed in the above said definition. 

        In  view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, we are of the firm view that the driver of the subject vehicle was having valid and effective driving license to drive the subject vehicle as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the opposite party committed deficiency in service against the complainant by not properly appreciating the driving licence , registration  certificate and the permit produced by the complainant. 

         Having regarding  to the facts  and circumstances of the case , there can be no doubt that the complainant has been subjected to mental agony. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation  to the complainant .  The appellant/complainant claimed a sum of Rs.1,44,769/-  towards damages to the vehicle, the amount incurred by him  for getting the repairs to the vehicle.  The opposite parties  have not disputed the claim amount, but they have repudiated  the claim on the ground that the driver had no valid  driving  license on the date of the accident.  In support of his claim, the complainant filed Ex.A3 bills. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant/complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,44,769/- and the respondents/opposite parties are liable to pay the same.       

        In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.  The complaint in C.C.No.299/2011 is allowed in part directing the respondents/opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,44,769/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the repudiation of the claim i.e. 31.8.2010, to the complainant.  The respondents/opp.parties are  also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation  for causing mental agony to the  complainant, along with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The respondents/opp.parties are directed to comply with the order  within four weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

                                                                      INCHARGE PRESIDENT

                                                                                MEMBER

Pm*                                                                        Dt. 29.10.2013