BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.679 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.132 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA
Between:
The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Rep., by its Branch Manager,
Eluru, West, Godavari District
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
K.Radha Krishna, S/o Bhimaiah,
Hindu, R/o Door No.59A-21/3-7B,
Vijayanagar Colony, Patamata,
Vijayawada – 10 Krishna District
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants M/s I.Maamu Vani
Counsel for the Respondent M/s V.Srinivas
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY THE ELEVANTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TU-4012 and it was insured with the opposite party on 24-11-2008 for a period of one year i.e., upto 23-11-2009. On 28.10.2009 the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident and it was badly damaged. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party and the opposite party appointed an authorized surveyor to estimate the loss. The surveyor submitted his report to the opposite party. Later, with the permission of the opposite party the complainant got repaired the damaged vehicle by spending a sum of `2,50,000/-. Subsequently another surveyor estimated the loss. The complainant submitted a claim form for a sum of `2,50,000/- along with relevant bills and vouchers. On receipt of the said claim the opposite party sent a letter dated 22-02-2010 stating that the driver of the complainant’s vehicle was authorized to drive light motor vehicles only and not heavy vehicle. The driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving license. The complainant issued notice through his advocate demanding the opposite party to settle the claim. The opposite party received the notice and kept quiet which amounts to deficiency in service, hence the complaint.
3. The opposite party resisted the case contending that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid license at the time of accident and the driving license was valid upto 18-08-2005 and the accident was occurred on 28-10-2009. As per the report the driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicles and the vehicle he drove is heavy goods vehicle. The driver was not authorized to drive the heavy goods vehicle as per Driving License extract issued by Additional Licensing Authority, Suryapet and the complainant’s claim under the above policy was not admissible.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 and on behalf of the opposite party Sri N.Prabhakara Rao, Manager in TP Claims Cell, filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the driver held valid driving license at the time of accident and as such the opposite party was liable to indemnify the complainant of the expenses incurred for repairing of the lorry.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party filed the appeal contending that the driver of the insured vehicle was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle (Non-transport) and he did not have licence to transport any goods vehicle and that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by handing over the vehicle to a person having no valid driving license.
7. The point for consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim is valid and justifiable?
8. It is beyond any dispute the complainant is owner of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16TU 4012 and it was insured with the opposite party for the period commencing from 24.11.2008 till 23.11.2009. The vehicle met with an accident on 28.10.2009 and was damaged in the accident. The surveyor deputed by the opposite party submitting his report and the opposite party repudiated the claim through letter dated 22.2.2010 that the driver of the vehicle was authorised to drive light motor vehicle and the insured vehicle which was involved in the accident is a heavy goods vehicle.
9. The driving license Ex.B2 of the driver of the insured vehicle establish that he is authorized to drive non-transport light motor vehicle from 1.3.2000 till 28.2.2020. The duplicate driving license filed by the complainant contains an endorsement made by the Additional Licensing Authority to the effect he was authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle till 18.8.2005. However, his driving license has not been renewed insofar as the authorization to drive heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle are concerned. As such the complainant has violated the terms of the insurance policy by handing over the vehicle to a person having no valid and effective driving license to drive the insured lorry as on the date of the accident.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant company has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs Prbhulal” 2008 ACJ 627. We have gone through the decisions carefully. The Supreme Court held in Prabhulal’s case that the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount in respect of own property damage claim in case the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The District Forum had committed error in allowing the complaint. The respondent failed to inspect the validity of the driving license of his driver. In the circumstances, there cannot be any deficiency service on the part of the appellant insurance company.
11. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.11.12.2012
KMK*
