BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S 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
Monday the 1st day of October, 2012
C.C.No.140/2011
Between:
Sahik Mohammed Haneef, S/o Yousuf Miah, Muslim,
Resident of 4-121, Jupadu Banglow - 518 401, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Manager,Kurnool Branch,
D.No.42/18, 3rd Floor, Alankar Plaza, Park Road,Kurnool District - 518 001.
- M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,Registered Office,
G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune - 411 006.
...Opposite ParTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.B.Nagi Reddy Advocate for complainant and Sri.A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member) C.C. No.140/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay vehicle damages of Rs.1,94,896/-;
- To pay a sum of Rs.2,23,560/- for heavy loss and mental agony of Rs.20,000/-;
- To costs of the complaint;
- To such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Y 6007 TATA ACEHI and it was insured with opposite parties under policy bearing No.OG-09-1806-1803-00003898. The policy was valid from 04-10-2008 to 03-10-2009. On 08-11-2008 the insured vehicle was met with an accident near VST Company, Munagala Village Sivar on NH-7 Road. As a result the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. The complainant informed the same to opposite party and opposite party appointed a spot surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle. A complaint was lodged before Itkyal P.S. and the same was registered in Crime No.94/2008. On the instructions of opposite party No.1, the complainant got repaired his vehicle at Craftsmen Motors (i.e,.) TATA Authorized Service Station at Kurnool. The said service station estimated value of damages at Rs.1,94,986/-. The complainant submitted claim form along with all relevant documents to opposite parties. On 14-11-2008 opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver of the vehicle possessed LMV Non Transport License at the time of accident whereas the insured vehicle was registered as Transport vehicle. The repudiation letter issued by opposite party No.1 is arbitrary and illegal. The opposite party No.1 did not observe about license and there is no separate steering to the vehicle. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2. It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable. It is barred by period of limitation. It is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Y 6007 and he insured the same with opposite parties. The opposite parties issued the policy bearing No.OG-09-1806-1803-00003898 covering the period from 04-10-2008 to 03-10-2009. It is also admitted that the insured vehicle was met with an accident on 08-11-2008 and the complainant intimated the same to opposite party. The complainant submitted the claim form to opposite party and opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on 14-11-2008 on the ground that the said vehicle was a commercial goods carriage vehicle and that Abdulla the driver of the said vehicle holding Non Transport (LMV) License at the time of accident. As the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also A.P.M.V. Rules the opposite party No.1 rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 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 parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B6 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINT No.i:- Admittedly the complainant insured his vehicle with opposite parties under Ex.B1 policy bearing No.OG-09-1806-1803-00003898. Admittedly the complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents to opposite parties on 11-11-2008 under Ex.B4. The opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim on 14-11-2008 under Ex.B6 = Ex.A3. It is the case of the opposite party that the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation under section 24 (a) C.P. Act, 1986. The period of limitation to file a complaint before the District Forum is two years from the date, on which the cause of action has arisen. In support of his version he cited a decision reported in 2009 (5) ALD 45 (SC). Kandimall Raghavaiah and Company –Vs- National Insurance Company and Another where in the Honourable Apex Court held that section 24(a) of the Act bars any Fora set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of act ion has arisen. In insurance cases, the period of limitation starts from the date on which the claim was repudiated. Admittedly the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 14-11-2008. The complaint is filed on 07-10-2011. The complaint is not in time, and it is barred by period of limitation.
8. POINTS ii and iii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 Y 6007 and it was insured with opposite parties under Ex.B1. The said policy was in force from 04-10-2008 to 03-10-2009. Admittedly the accident was took place on 08-11-2008. A copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.94/2008, Itkyal P.S. is marked as Ex.A1. Admittedly after intimation insurance surveyor was appointed by opposite parties and the said surveyor assessed the loss and filed his report before opposite parties which is marked as Ex.B5. It is the case of the complainant that on 08-11-2008 the insured vehicle met with an accident, that after intimation the opposite party appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss caused to the vehicle. On the instructions of opposite party No.1, the complainant got repaired his vehicle at Craftsmen Motors, Kurnool. The said Motor Service Station issued estimation bills for a sum of Rs.1,94,896/- Ex.A2. The complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents to opposite party but the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim illegally on the ground that Abdulla driver of the said vehicle was holding LMV (Non Transport Driving License), and that the vehicle was Transport vehicle. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving license for Motor Car or Jeep, TATA Trally ACHET, as the vehicle was weighting less than 7,500/- Kg. In support of his contention he cited decisions reported in I 2006 (2) ALD 4 (NC) and 2005 ACJ 1547. In the said decision it was held that the vehicle in question would remain a light Motor Vehicle as the vehicle was weighting less than 6,000 Kg and not carrying any goods at the time of accident though the vehicle was designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods carrier. But in the present case the insured vehicle was carrying four she buffaloes at the time of accident.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that the vehicle of the complainant was commercial vehicle, that the driver of the complainant was holding license to drive Light Motor Vehicle, that there was no endorsement on the driving license of the driver of the complainant that he could drive the transport vehicle. The driving license of said driver Abdulla is marked as Ex.B3. A copy of Certificate of Registration of Insured vehicle as transport vehicle bearing No.AP21 Y 6007 is marked as Ex.B2. The complainant willfully handed over his vehicle to a person, who did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive commercial vehicle. It is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay damages to the complainant. In support of his contention he relied on decisions reported in:
1. Sandhya –Vs- United India Insurance Company
Limited (Revision Petition No.3358/2011 (Against
the order dated 27-05-2011 in Appeal No.1339/2011 of the State Commission, Karnataka) Pronounced
on 3-05-2012.
2. Ankit Goyal –Vs- The New India Assurance Company
Limited Revision Petition No.3825/2011 (Against the
order dated 05-09-2011 in Appeal No.278/2010 of
the State Commission, UT Chandigarh) Pronounced
on 20-01-2012.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited –Vs-
Aravind Kumar Rajak (III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC).
10. In the said above decisions it is clearly held that “the driver who was holding license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) could not have plied commercial transport vehicle without there being any endorsement driving transport vehicle. In the present case the driver did not have such an endorsement in Ex.B3. In the light of the finding of Apex Court in decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 3440 we hold that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the opposite party need not pay any amount towards damages to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1st day of October, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nill For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.94/2008 of Itkyal P.S.
Mahaboob Nagar District dated 08-11-2008.
Ex.A2 Invoice dated 13-11-2008 issued by Craftsmen Motors,
Kurnool.
Ex.A3 Repudiation Letter dated 14-11-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Certificate cum Policy schedule
No.OG-09-1806-1803-00003898.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of (Form – 24) B-Register of Motor Vehicle
bearing No.AP21 Y 6007 dated 10-10-2008.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Driving License issued by A.P. Transport
Department dated 11-09-2008.
Ex.B4 Motor Insurance Claim Form dated 11-11-2008.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of Motor Final Survey Report dated 25-06-2012.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 14-11-2008.
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 :
