BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.225/2008 against CC.No.101/2006 District Consumer Forum, Kurnool.

Between:

The Divisional Manager,

M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Kurnool.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

K.Ramesh Gupta, S/o.K.Sreenivasulu,

C/o.Mangala Goods Transport,

Opp.Police Station,

Yemmiganur,

Kurnool District. 

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant        : Mr.M.Hari Babu.

Counsel for the Respondent    : Mr.A.Jaya Raju.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******  

1.         The Insurance company, the opposite party, preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool directing it to pay an amount of Rs.73,828/- towards compensation together with interest and costs.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he insured his lorry No.AP 21 T 3688 with the opposite party for Rs.2,86,000/- for the period from 07.10.2004 to 06.10.2005.  While so on 20.05.2005 it met with an accident wherein the lorry was damaged.  On information, the Insurance Company has appointed a surveyor who in turn assessed the loss at very low amount.  Despite repeated reminders the Insurance Company did not settle the claim on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence.  In fact he was having heavy transport Vehicle Licence which he was being renewed from time to time.  In order to avoid payment, the Insurance Company has unjustly repudiated the claim.  Therefore, he filled the complaint claiming Rs.2,27,360/- together with interest at 18% per annum, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs.

3.         The Insurance Company resisted the case.  While admitting the issuance of policy, it alleged that it was not aware of the accident.  When it was informed,  it had appointed a surveyor to assess the damage.  The complainant did not get his damaged lorry repaired through New Daimond Body Builders, Auto Nagar, Hyderabad by spending an amount of Rs.2,27,360/-as furnished by the complainant.  The surveyor applied to Additional Licencing Authority, Central Zone, Hyderabad to know the genuineness of the driving licence.  They had informed that there was no licence issued to the said member.  Since the driver was not having valid driving licence they repudiated the claim.  Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the estimate marked as Ex.A.1 and Ex.X.1 the final survey report, besides examining P.W.1 and 2, while the opposite party got the documents marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5.

5.         The District Forum based on the estimate made by the surveyor allowed the complaint directing the opposite party Insurance Company to pay Rs.73,828/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/-.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that the driver was not having valid driving licence and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation.

7.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts and law in this regard?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had taken an insurance policy covering the lorry owned by him valid from 07.10.2004 to 06.10.2005.  It is also not in dispute that on 20.5.2005 the said lorry met with an accident.  The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor by name D.R.Krishna Murthy, who found that the loss was to a tune of Rs.73,828/-. 

9.         He noted the driving licence particulars.   The date of issuance of licence was noted as 10.06.1995 valid upto 09.06.2005.  The driving licence was issued by Assistant Licensing Authority, Hyderabad (C.Z).  He noted the type of licence as LMV & HTV.  He did not doubt genuineness of the driving licence.  The Insurance Company for the reasons best known got the driving licence verified through one K.Nageswara Rao, an insurance surveyor/loss assessor.  He addressed letter under Ex.B.4 dated 27.07.2006 on which an endorsement was made by the Licensing Authority that “as per this office records, the DL No.6039/95 of G.Narayana is not having any records in our computer data base.  Hence it is not issued by this office” The Insurance Company states that the driving licence was fake.  A perusal of the said endorsement would in no way confirm that the driving licence was a fake.  What all it stated was that only through computer data base, they could not confirm that it was not issued by them.  From that it can not be said that the driver was not having valid driving licence. 

10.       The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that along with claim form the complainant has enclosed a Xerox copy of the driving licence.  Unfortunately neither the claim form nor the Xerox copy of the driving lience was filed before the District Forum.  When there is no evidence whatsoever to state that the driver’s licence was a fake one and that the driver was not having valid driving licence, we are unable to agree with the contention of the Insurance Company that the driver was not having valid driving licence.  We reiterate that the Insurance Company’s surveyor had mentioned that the driver was having both LMV as well as HTV. The District Forum after considering the nature of damage and the very report of the Surveyor awarded compensation of Rs.73,828/- which we feel reasonable and moderate.  We do not see any flaw either in appreciation of fact or law in that regard.

11.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

Dt:11.06.2010.

Vvr.