BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 13th day of July, 2011
C.C.No.28/2010
Between:
B. Raghava Reddy at B.V. Raghava Reddy,S/o. B.Chinna Reddy,
R/o. 4-91, Yenugumarri Village, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,Rep., by its Manager/Office -in-charge,
Alankar Plaza, 3rd Floor, Park Road, Shop No.53,54,55,Kurnool-518 002.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Regional Manager,
H.No.79-83-1A,G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerrawada, Pune - 411 006.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 as called absent for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 28/2010
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-
- To pay assured amount of Rs.45,000/- with all benefits and interest at 12% P.A. from the date of death of the insured;
(b) To award compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite parties;
(c) To award costs of Rs.10,000/-;
And
- To pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 21 X 5631 and AP 21 X 5632 which was insured with opposite parties under the policy No.OG-09-1806-1811-00001102. On 17-08-2009 in the evening when the said empty tractor was being driven by one B.Rajendra Reddy, one jeep bearing No.AP 21 V 9899 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the tractor of the complainant near Nakkarallmitta on NH.No.7 Road. As a result the tractor of the complainant was damaged. The complainant informed about the damage to the opposite parties. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by opposite parties stating that the driver of the tractor was not having valid driving licence to drive commercial tractor and trailer at the time of accident. There is no violation of the policy conditions. The driver got licence to drive light motor vehicle. Further the accident was occurred due to negligence of jeep driver and there was no negligence in driving the tractor trailer by B.Rajendra Reddy. The surveyor assessed the damage at Rs.45,000/-. In spite of legal notice the opposite parties not settle the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 set exparte. Opposite party No.1 field written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant insured his tractor trailer bearing No.AP 21 X 5631 and AP 21 X 5632 with opposite party No.1. The complainant made a claim stating that his vehicle met with an accident on 17-08-2009. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the tractor trailer did not hold effective driving licence to drive commercial tractor trailer. B.Rajendra Reddy is authorized to drive only non-transport tractor trailer as on the date of accident. The complainant tractor trailer was registered under commercial category. It must be driven by a person holding T & T transport endorsement. The complainant will fully handed over his vehicle to the driver who had not valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The claim of the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 Ex.B1 to B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINTS 1 & 2:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 21 X 5631 and AP 21 X 5632. The complainant insured his vehicle with the opposite parties under the policy Ex.B1. Admittedly the complainant made a claim to the opposite parties stating that his vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 17-08-2009. Opposite party No.1repudiated the claim of the complainant under Ex.B3 stating that the driver of the complainants tractor was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive commercial tractor trailer as on the date of the accident. It is also admitted that opposite party No.1 appointed a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the tractor of the complainant.
8. Admittedly tractor trailer of the complainant is registered as a commercial vehicle. It is mentioned Ex.B1 policy that the vehicle of the complainant is a commercial vehicle. Ex.B1 policy was in force from 28-09-2008 to 28-09-2009. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver of the tractor trailer of the complainant was not having transport driving licence at the time of the accident. Ex.A1 is the driving licence of the B.Rajendra Reddy. It is a non-transport driving licence to drive MCWG, T & T issued on 28-03-2007. The said licence is valid up to 27-03-2027. Admittedly B.Rajendra Reddy who was driving the vehicle of the complainant was not having driving licence to drive commercial vehicle. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of jeep which came in opposite direction and that tractor trailer of the complainant was empty. Ex.A3 is the copy of the F.I.R. As seen from Ex.A3 it is very clear that on the basis of report given by B.Rajendra Reddy who was driving the vehicle of the complainant, Peapully Police registered a case in crime No.4/2009. It is mentioned in Ex.A3 that the tractor of the complainant was proceeding after unloading the dust. It is also mentioned in Ex.A3 that the jeep driven by driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction, dashed against the tractor of the complainant and as a result the tractor was damaged. Admittedly B.Rajendra Reddy got non transport driving licence. It is endorsed in the driving licence of B.Rajendra Reddy that he can drive tractor trailer (non-transport). Merely because the tractor trailer of the complainant was registered as a commercial vehicle it cannot be said that B.Rajendra Reddy who got non transport driving licence is not competent to drive it. As there is no endorsement on Ex.A1 authorizing B.Rajendra Reddy to drive a transport vehicle, the claim of the complainant cannot be rejected. In a decision reported in 2000 ACJ 319 it is held that the driver possessing a licence to drive light motor vehicle can also drive light motor vehicle (transport). The vehicle of the complainant is light motor vehicle. It was not carrying goods at the time of the accident though it was designed to be used as a transport vehicle. In the light of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court cited above we are of the firm opinion that there is no violation of condition of the policy. Admittedly the driver of the complainant had valid driving licence to drive L.M.V. non transport vehicles. There is evidence on record to show that the vehicle of the complainant was not carrying in goods at the time of the accident.
9. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.45,000/- from the opposite parties as damages. Admittedly the opposite parties appointed a surveyor Ex.B4 is the report of the surveyor. He assessed the loss at Rs.22,200/-. The complainant is entitled to the said amount. The opposite parties are not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.22,200/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e., 20-08-2009 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13th day of July, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Driving licence of complainant dated 28-03-2007.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 27-10-2099 along with postal acknowledgements.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of F.I.R of Crime No.104/2009 of Peapulla Police Station dated 17-08-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 photo copy of policy No.0G-09-1806-1811-00001102 with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Driving Licence No.DLFAP02137422007 of complainant issued by Licencing authority Kurnool.
Ex.B3 Office copy of repudiation letter dated 20-08-2009.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of Final Surveyor report dated 18-08-2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
