Date of filing : 09-10-2012
Date of order : 30-01-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.273/12
Dated this, the 30th day of January 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Dayananda, S/o.Lakshmana, : Complainant
Koppal House, Po.Kalnad, Kasaragod. 671317
(Adv.K.Shrikantha shetty, Kasaragod)
1 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd, : Opposite parties
ICICI Lombard House,
414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Sidhi Vinayaka Temple, Prabhadevi,
Mumbai, Masharastra- 400025
Rep. by it’s Manager.
(Adv.AC.Ashokkumar, Kasaragod)
2 APCO Automobiles Pvt.Ltd, Po.Thottada,
Kannur, Rep. by its Manager.
(Adv. Babu Mandein, Kannur)
3 APCO Automobiles Pvt.Ltd, Vidyanagar,
Kasaragod. 671125.
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
Complainant is the owner of the vehicle TATA ACE ZIP bearing Reg.No.KL14L 1065 which is purchased from opposite party No.2 and the insurance is with opposite party No.1. All the services of opposite parties 1 & 2 are provided by opposite party No.3. The above said vehicle is insured with opposite party No.1 as per policy No.30003/TM 619275/00/000 for the period from 9-12-2011 to 8-12-2012. The said vehicle met with an accident on 22-02-2012 night as a result the vehicle was totally damaged. The accident was intimated to opposite parties, claim lodged and vehicle kept for repair at opposite party No.2, surveyor surveyed the vehicle and all estimations done by opposite party No.2 is of Rs.1,51,975/-. Opposite parties 1 & 3 assured to the complainant that his claim will be settled for Rs.1,40,000/-. Complainant is alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, as they orally repudiated the claim on the ground that badge of the driver is not received on the date of accident.
2. For opposite party No.2 Adv.Babu Manderi, Kannur filed vakalth opposite party No.1 absent inspite of receipt of notice, name of opposite party No.1 called absent set exparte. On 1-4-2013 opposite party No.1 filed IA 125/13 to set aside the exparte order. IA allowed, after that version of the opposite parties accepted. Opposite parties admits that vehicle is insured on the date of accident. But it is denied that the earning from the vehicle is the only source of income of the complainant. It is also denied that driver Kumaran is having the driving licence to drive LMV class vehicle from 16-09-1980 to 10-10-2016 he is authorized to drive Transport Vehicle also as per endorsement with effect from 3-7-1999. It is also denied that the vehicle is totally damaged and opposite party No.2 estimated the total charges at Rs.97,475/- repair charges of Rs.30,000/- touring charges at Rs.4,500/- and painting charges Rs.20,000/- and approximate time for repairs is 5 months. It is also denied that opposite party assured the complainant to settle the claim for Rs.1,40,000/- and the last minute of opposite party rejected the claim. It is also denied that the repudiation was not communicated in writing so far even on request from the complainant and this opposite party is delaying the settlement unnecessarily.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A5 marked. Opposite parties counsel submitted that they have no oral evidence. Exts B1 to B4 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. The question raised for consideration is whether Non-Transport LMV-DL of the driver is a sufficient ground to repudiate the claim?
Whether the repudiation of claim by opposite parties is justifiable or not?
5. It is admitted that the vehicle KL/14 L-1065 is insured with opposite party No.1 on the date of accident i.e. on 22-2-2012. The policy is valid from 9-12-2011 to 8-12-2012 and is covered the accident period. The class of the vehicle is LMV goods carriage Ext.A3 weighing only 685 Kg.
6. While perusing the documents we are of the view that the driver of the vehicle Sri.Kumaran was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a Non transport vehicle on the date of accident. In Ext.B2 it is stated that Metal badge is not on for want of stock. As per the preliminary survey report Ext.B3 conducted on 25-04-2012 the Driving Licence of Sri. Kumaran is valid up to 10-10-2016 (NT) and the DL no is FDL/221/97-98. The Vidyanagar police registered FIR 118/12 for the accident. At the time of accident, the policy is valid. Both parties produced judgements. Depending upon the decisions made in AIR 2008 SC 1418. Light Motor Vehicle covers Light Passenger carriage vehicle and Light goods carriage vehicle. Driver possessing LMV licence cannot be said to not possess effective licence to drive TATA ACEZIP having goods carriage permit. Insurance company cannot shirk its liability to pay compensation.
7. The reason stated for non allowing the claim is that licence of the driver is not valid and effective to drive transport vehicle on the date of loss as per Ext.B1. But in the foot notes of Ext.B3, it is stated that insurance policy certificate, RC and DL have been verified, as per Driving licence extract produced by the concerned RTO the Driving licence renewed up to 10-10-2011 for transport vehicle. Renewal of licence is effective up to 10-10-2016 is for non transport vehicles. Moreover, as per Ext.B3 the surveyor recommended Rs.1,23,408/-. The surveyor recommended Rs.1,23,408/- for settlement of the claim. We accept this recommendation.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to settle the claim for Rs.1,23,408/- with Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Policy Copy.
A2.Copy of FIR
A3.RC.Copy.
A4.Driving licence of Kumaran
A5.Accident Repair Estimate.
B1.Copy of Claim status communication.
B2. Extract of Driving licence of Kumaran
B3.Preliminary Survey Report
B4. Certificate cum policy schedule
PW1. Dayananda.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
