BEFORETHE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 3rd day of November, 2010. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.100/2009 Between: Pateru Tirupaiah, S/o Chinna Ramaiah, Age:40years, Occu:Agrl, R/o Gudimalla (V), Khammam Rural (M), Khammam District. …. Complainant. And Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Loniya Towers, D.No.40-9/1-12, Opp. Nirmala Convent, Vijayawada – 520 008. … Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri G. Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is resident of Gudimalla (V), Khammam Rural (M), Khammam District. He is an agriculturist used to cultivate his agricultural land. The complainant purchased the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.AP 20 Y-4794-4795 and insured the same with the opposite party on 30-01-2009. Accordingly the opposite party issued policy bearing No.40816895, which is valid from 21-01-2009 to 20-01-2010 to the above vehicle. On 17-07-2009 at 11:00 a.m. the complainant went to his agricultural field along with his Tractor bearing No.AP 20 Y-4794, which is driven by one B.Kishore, while operating the agricultural works at about 12:00 p.m., accidentally the tractor fell into the agricultural well, as a result of which the tractor completely damaged and the driver escaped from the accident. Further complainant submitted that immediately, he informed the opposite party about the accident, accordingly the opposite party deputed a surveyor to inspect the tractor of the complainant. The complainant sent the tractor to Mahindra showroom, Khammam in order to get repairs, after attending repairs and replacing new items, the showroom authorities made a bill for Rs.60,200/- and the same was paid by the complainant as per the bill and service charges. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party and submitted claim form along with bills. After receiving the bills the opposite party stated that they will inform about the payment of claim within a week, believing the version of the opposite party the complainant waited with a hope that the opposite party will pay the amount. But on 07-09-2009, complainant received a letter issued by the opposite party wherein stated that the opposite party regret inability to honour the claim because the vehicle was registered under commercial purpose, whereas the driver at the time of incident did not possess transport endorsement driving license. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party to settle the claim amount but they failed to pay the same. As such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 2. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1:- Insurance policy which is valid from 21-01-2009 to 20-01-2010. Ex.A2:- Photo copy of Registration Certificate of the Tractor. Ex.A3:- Letter issued by opposite party dated 07-09-2009. Ex.A4:- Positive photographs of damaged tractor [6 Nos.] 3. On receipt of notice, opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter, the opposite party specifically denied the entire averments made in the complaint except purchasing the tractor and obtaining insurance policy valid from 21-01-2009 to 20-01-2010. And also submitted that as per registration certificate of the Tractor-Trailer, the tractor was registered for commercial purpose, but the complainant used the same for agricultural works, the driver of the tractor who drove the vehicle at the time of accident had no valid and effective driving license. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy as such the complaint is not maintainable. Further submitted that the claim of the complainant for Rs.60,200/- is not totally acceptable since it is only an estimation prepared on assumption and prayed to dismiss the complaint.. 4. To support their contention, opposite party filed the following documents, which were marked as Ex.B1 to B3. Ex.B1:- Photo copy of insurance surveyor and loss assessor report dated 30-08-2009. Ex.B2:- Claim Form. Ex.B3:- Driving license of the of the driver, B.Kishore. 5. On behalf of the complainant and opposite party, written arguments filed, heard both sides. 6. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, now the points that arose for consideration are, 1) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages? 2) To what relief? Point No.1:- The case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist, he used to cultivate his land. He purchased Tractor-Trailer bearing No. AP 20 Y-4794-4795 and the same was insured with the opposite party. On 17-07-2009 at 12:00 hours accidentally the tractor fell into the well as a result of which it was damaged. It is not in dispute that the tractor met with an accident and due to which it was damaged. The case of the insurance company is that the complainant purchased the tractor for commercial purpose and registered the same with RTA. But the complainant used the same for agricultural works, at the time of accident one B.Kishore, who drove the vehicle had no valid and effective driving license. As the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The case of the insurance company is that at the time of accident, the driver B.Kishore who drove the vehicle has license to drive non-transport tractor-trailer and therefore he could not have driven the transport vehicle in the absence of necessary license as required, therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable. To support their case, along with surveyor report, the surveyor filed the photocopy of driving license of B.Kishore. The same was not disputed by the complainant. In New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Prabhu Lal (1) 2008 ACC 54 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court in para No.11 (g) observed that “the license issued in favour of the driver to ply a particular type of vehicle, he could not have plied other vehicle and the insurance company could not be held liable if there was breech of that condition.” From the above we observed that the driver of the complainant was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The documents clearly go to show that the vehicle met with the accident was commercial vehicle. At the time of accident, the driver of the complainant was holding license to ply non-transport tractor-trailer. In the absence of the valid driving license, the complainant cannot claim compensation from the insurance company. And the opposite party company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. POINT No.2:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 3rd day of November, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite party: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1:- Insurance policy which is valid from 21-01-2009 to 20-01-2010. Ex.A2:- Photo copy of Registration Certificate of the Tractor. Ex.A3:- Letter issued by opposite party dated 07-09-2009. Ex.A4:- Positive photographs of damaged tractor [6 Nos.] Exhibits marked for opposite party: Ex.B1:- Photo copy of insurance surveyor and loss assessor report dated 30-08-2009. Ex.B2:- Claim Form. Ex.B3:- Driving license of the of the driver, B.Kishore. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM