Karnataka

Bidar

CC/63/2014

RAKESH S/O RAMESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERAL INSURENCE CO, LTD HUBLI - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                        C.C.No. 63/2014.

 

                                                                                           Date of filing: 26/07/2014.

 

                                                                                      Date of disposal : 31/03/2017.

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa  (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                  Member

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT:              Rakesh, S/o Ramesh,                                                           

                                          Age: major, Occ: Self employment,

                                          R/o Village Gornalli-B,Tq.Bidar.

 

                                       (By Shri. Deshpande  P.M.,Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-          Future General India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

                                          2^nd Floor, Kalburgi land mark, T.B. road,

                                          Deshpande nagar Hubli-580029.

 

 

                                         (  By Shri. Prakash V.M., Advocate)                                                

                       

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

    The complainant has filed the complaint u/s.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)  alleging  deficiency of service in the part of the O.P. 

 

2.           The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that:

               The complainant had purchased a Tractor and Trolly under self employment scheme. The vehicle was hypothecated with D.C.C. Bank, Bidar and had obtained insurance vide policy no. V2736747 by paying required premium with the Future General India Insurance Co.Ltd. and the date of validity was from 23-12-2013 to 04-12-2014.  While the matter stood as such, the vehicle  on 25-03-2014 was carrying for agriculture soil material near the land of the complainant, met with an accident resulting heavy damages.   The driver of the vehicle was holding Driving Licence and insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident.   Consequent upon the incident it was reported to the concerned police station and Opponent Insurance Co. and claim form were submitted with the documents to the Opponent, despite of which Opponent has repudiated the claim on vague grounds, hence he is before this Forum.

 

3.                 Entering into defense the O.P. had filed detailed written version  denying therein all averments made in the complaint claiming them to be false and baseless.  Further the O.P. avers that complainant had not filed the complaint well within time and the complaint is time barred.  The driver of the Tractor and Trailer was not holding the valid and effective D.L. at the time of the accident for driving the said vehicle and the complainant has violated the policy conditions hence, the Opponent insurance Company claims to be  not liable to pay any compensation on the basis of violation of policy conditions by the complainant.

4.            Both the sides have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written arguments reiterating their respective stands and have further filed documents relied upon by them as listed at the end of this order.

5.         Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and the citation quoted by the complainant the following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Does the O.P. Insurance Company prove that, the Driver of the Tractor had no valid licence and the O.P.  is justified to repudiate the claim?

 

2. Does the complainant prove that there has been a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

 

 

 

3. What order ?

6.       Basing on the divergent claims of  the paraties the following points arise for our consideration

      1.   In the negative.

      2.   In the affirmative.

      4.  As per the final order for the following:

 

                                 

:: R E A S O N S : :

 

7.        Points no. 1 & 2 are being considered together.

                 The disposal of the present case has been delayed, since both sides, after it was pointed out to them that, the Driver of the Tractor was having a valid driving licence to drive a Tractor on the date of accident, deliberated that, they would thrive for an amicable settlement.  After adjourning the case several times to report such settlement, when the parties concerned still remained non cooperative, we decided to pass the orders disposing off the case.

 

8.              In the instant case the O.P. Insurance Claim has tried to justify it’s repudiation and to aid such act, has submitted the copy of an order of Govt. of India, S.O.no.45/(E) dt. 19/06/1989, in which both Tractor and Trailer have been classified as non-transport vehicles.  Since, it is in the complaint that, the Tractor was transporting soil and other matters to field tied up with a Trailer the O.P. classifying the motor vehicle as a Transport vehcle has unreasonably and mindlessly rejected the claim.  Other wise from the copy of the D.L. it is seen that, the D.L. for the Tractor was issued on 21/03/2013 and even though no outer limit has been prescribed from a common sense it would be presumed that, it remains valid for at least three years unless suspended or annuled.   In the case, the date of accident being 25/03/2014, the Driving Licence was well within validity period.

9.                  While dealing with a similar case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagashetty V/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & ors. reported in Supreme Court and National Commission ‘ Consumer Court cses’ – page 1089, in para-10 of the findings has been pleased to hold as follows:

Undoubtedly under section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles.  The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective.  If the argument of Mr.S.C. Sharda is to be accepted then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle  attaches a roof carrier to his car or trailer to his car and carries goods thereon the L.M.V. would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle.  It would lead to absurd results.  Merely because  a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle.  The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or more vehicle.  If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle to continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or a motor vehicle he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or a motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it.  In other words a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.

 

10.                 In a later case reported in 2014(I) CLT page.231, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd V/s Biro Devi, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has further ruled as hereunder.

“ Motor Vehicles Act,1988- Driving licence-Insurance claim-Breach of terms of policy-Repudiation-On the ground that at the time of accident, driver had licence for LMV, whereas he was driving LMV commercial vehicle-Held-Insurance Company has failed to prove that the insured did not take reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the insurance policy regarding use of vehicle by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time-Even where the Insurance Company is able to prove breach on part of the insured regarding holding of a valid driving licence, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach of condition of the policy is so fundamental, as is found to have contributed to the cause of the accident”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

11.       The ratios of both the cases quoted above, squarely applies to the present case and hence we hold that, the O.P. Insurance Company, in spite of having valid D.L. repudiating the claim has been wholly unjustified in it’s approach.  Therefore, we answer the points no.s1 and 2 accordingly.

12.   Point No. 3:-  The O.P. Insurance Company vide Ex.P.1 has issued the Insurance Certificate  and   has accepted the I.D.V. of the Tractor as Rs. 3,50,000/- and Trailer as Rs.50,000/- by receiving the due premium.  Even though intimated about the accident vide Ex.P.2 on 28/03/2014, it has not taken any step to depute any surveyor to assess the extent of damages.  The complainant/ Insured vide Ex.P.3 & P4 has submitted two estimates i.e. the former for the Tractor at Rs. 1,58,599/- and the later for the Trailer at Rs.35,300/-(together Rs.1,93,899/-) well within the insurance limits and there is no scope for the Insurance Company to dispute the assessment.  However, the complainant has chosen to confine his claim of insurance at Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards cost and damages which are exagerated and hence not due.  Therefore, we proceed to pass the followig:-

 

: :   ORDERS : :

                 The complaint is allowed in part.

1. The O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.1,93,599/-(Rupees One lac ninety-three thousand five hundred ninety nine rupees only) rounded of to Rs.1,93,600/-(Rupees One lac ninety-three thousand six hundred rupees only) towards the claim of insurance to the complainant, with interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date of accident i.e. 25/03/2014 till date of realisation;
2. The O.P. is further liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards cost and damages, for unjust deprival of the  legitimate claim.

3. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

  

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  31^st  day of Maarch-2017 )

 

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                               

           Member                                                                        President

                                               

                                                                                                                                                    

Documents produced by the complainant

                                                                                                                              

1.Ex.P.1-Insurance Certificate (copy).  

2.Ex.P.2- Claim form (copy ).

3.Ex.P.3 & 4- Estimates for repairing Tractor & Trailer.

4. Ex.P.5-Repudiation letter.  

5. Ex.P.6 to P.13-Color photos of damaged Tractor Trailer.

6. Ex.P.14-R.C. Book (Copy).

7. Ex.P.15- D.L. of Kashinath (Copy )

8. Ex.P.16- Office Copy of legal notice.

 

Documents produced by the Opponent.

 

Ex.R.1-  Driving Licence of Driver Kashinath.

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                               

           Member                                                                        President

 

mv.