THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NOS. 190/2012 & 312/2012
Appeal No.190/2012
H.M.Santhosh Kumar, Partner,
M/s Devanagari Gas Agencies,
No.522/9, Hiremath Complex,
Kaipet, Davangere-577 001.
………...Appellant.
(By Sri/Smt. M.V.Revanasiddaiah, Adv.,)
-Versus-
1. Motor Claims Head,
Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
G.E.Plaza, Airport Road,
Yerwada, PUne-411 006.
2. The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
4th Floor, Kalburgi Mansion,
Opp: Municipal Corporation,
Station Road, Hubli-580 020.
3. The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
Murugharajendra Complex,
Jayadeva Circle, Davangere.
………..Respondents
(By Sri/Smt. A.N.Krishnaswamy, Adv.,)
Appeal No.312/2012
1. Motor Claims Head,
Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
G.E.Plaza, Airport Road,
Yerwada, PUne-411 006.
2. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
4th Floor, Kalburgi Mansion,
Opp: Municipal Corporation,
Lamington Road, Hubli-580 020.
3. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
Murugharajendra Complex,
Jayadeva Circle, Davangere.
Now represented by
Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co., Ltd.,
#31, Ground Floor, TBR Tower,
1st Cross, New Mission Road,
Adjacent to Jain College &
Bangalore Stock Exchange,
Bangalore-560 027.
……….Appellants
V/s
H.M.Santhosh Kumar, Partner,
M/s Devanagari Gas Agencies,
No.522/9, Hiremath Complex,
Kaipet, Davangere-577 001.
(By Sri/Smt. M.V.Revanasiddaiah, Adv.,)
………..Respondents
:COMMON ORDER:
BY SMT. SUNITA.C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
The appeal No.190/2012 has been field by the complainant for enhancement of the amount awarded towards damages and compensation along with other reliefs and the appeal No.312/2012 has been filed by the Opposite Parties to set-aside the order. Both these appeals have been filed against the same order dated:04.01.2012 passed by the Davangere District Commission in C.C.No.58/2011.
2. The parties are same and the facts involved in these appeals are one and the same. Hence, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals are taken up together to pass a common order.
3. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Parties as per their rankings before the District Commission.
4. The case of the complainant is that:
The complainant is the owner of Ashok Leyland Truck bearing No.KA-17/A-9769 and the same was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 02.09.2009 to 01.09.2010. On 05.07.2010 the said vehicle met with an accident near Rippen Pet and sustained damages. One Mr.H.K.Veeraiah was driving the vehicle at the time of accident who had valid D.L. at the time of accident and the claim made by the complainant with Insurance Company was repudiated on the ground that the driver H.K.Veeraiah had no hazardous driving license.
4(a) It is further submitted that on 04.09.2010 the complainant addressed a letter to the 1st Opposite Party stating the driver H.K.Veeraiah had under gone various training programs conducted by HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION and obtained certificate. In spite of the same, the Opposite Party by its letter dated:24/09/2010 refused to entertain the claim and the legal notice issued by the complainant went in vain.
4(b) It is further stated by the complainant that Mr.H.K.Veeriah who had undergone training programme conducted by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., was competent to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods and that the failure on his part to produce certificate before the R.T.O and get an endorsement is only a minor technical flaw which will not entitle the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim. It is further stated that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company amounts to deficiency in service and therefore claimed Rs.10,65,000/- towards damages caused to the vehicle, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards notice charges and parking charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per say from 07.07.2010 till the date of payment.
5. After issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties appeared before the District Commission and filed their version admitting ownership of the vehicle and insurance policy. The Opposite Parties have not disputed the accident which took place on 05.07.2010 and the damage caused to the vehicle. The Opposite Parties have denied all other allegations made in the complaint. According to the Opposite Parties, H.K.Veeraiah had no hazardous driving license and he did not undergo training programs conducted by Hindustan Petroleum Company and therefore the repudiation of the claim is justified. The Opposite Parties have further contended that after receipt of the information regarding accident, surveyor was deputed who has assessed the loss at Rs.1,88,267.80 and that they are not liable to pay the said amount, because of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the definite case of the Opposite Parties that there is no deficiency in service on their part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. After trial, the District Commission directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,45,000/- towards damage caused to the vehicle together with interest @ 9% from the date of repudiation till the date of payment along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and cost of Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/Opposite Parties filed this appeal on various grounds.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Davanagere, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the owner of Ashok Leyland Truck bearing No.KA-17/A/9769 meant for carrying hazardous goods. On 05.07.2010 the said vehicle was damaged in the accident near Rippen Pet. At the time of accident, the said vehicle was driven by H.K.Veeraiah. The complainant was made the claim to the insurance company. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated:24.09.2010 on the ground that the driver Sri.H.K.Veeraiah does not hold hazardous driving license at the time of accident and hence was not authorized to drive the said type of vehicle.
9. Perused the contention of the insurance company in his objection at Lower Court. The insurance company contended that at the time of accident, the said vehicle was driven by Sri. H.K.Veeraiah and he does not hold hazardous driving license. Regarding accident, surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.1,88,261.80. However, the insurance company is not liable to pay the said amount, because the complainant has violated the Rules of Central Motor Vehicle Act 1989. Hence, repudiation of claim is just and proper.
10. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that as per Ex.A8 dated:24.01.2011 the letter of complainant to Jayaprakash Shukla, Motor Claims Head of Bajaja Allianz General Insurance Company Limited stating that the driver Sri.H.K.Veeraiah had undergone training under Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited and as per mandatory requirements of Rule 9(1), driver has proved the following conditions:-
1. Driver shall possess Driving License to drive Transport Vehicle.
2. He has ability to read and write at-least one Indian Language specified in Schedule-VIII of the Constitution and also English.
3. He shall possess a certificate having successfully passed a course consisting of the syllabus prescribed in the Rule itself.
But as per Rule 9(2), the Driver H.K.Veeraiah has to make an application to R.T.O. to obtain endorsement in the D.L. to assess to drive such type of vehicle. We agree that as per Rule 9(2) of Central Motor Vehicle Act, want of endorsement of R.T.O. in driving license is necessary to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods. However, it is evident that the Driver H.K.Veeraiah has driving license to drive the transport vehicle and he has undergone training from 12.10.2009 to 14.10.2009 in “SIOUX TRAINING INSTITUTE” regarding “Safe Road Transportation of dangerous and Hazardous Goods”. If the driver has such certificate, then it is sufficient to show that the driver can drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods. It is the mistake of driver that he has not made an application to RTO, but, it is not intentionally and for such minor mistake, repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company is not justified. Moreover, if certain conditions in the policy which are not a fundamental conditions are violated, the insurance can be settled on non-standard basis.
11. According to the complainant Rs.10,65,000/- was the damage caused to the truck. But he has not produced any documents regarding that. Hence, the District Commission has directed the insurance company to settle the claim on non-standard basis and directed to pay 75% of loss assessed by the surveyor which comes to Rs.1,45,000/- to the complainant which is just and proper. Hence, considering the facts, discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, for the above said reasons, both these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal No190/2012 filed by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of the compensation is hereby dismissed.
The appeal No.312/2012 filed by the Opposite Parties to set aside the impugned order is also dismissed.
Consequently, the order dated:04.01.2012 passed by the Davanagere District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.58/2011 is hereby confirmed.
The amount deposited in appeal No.312/2012 shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
The original of this order shall be kept in Appeal No.190/2012 and a copy thereof shall be kept in appeal No.312/2012.
No order as to costs.
Return the LCR to the concerned District Commission.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
