BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.1648/2008 against C.C.No.203/2007, District Forum-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Osman Plaza, 6-3-352/1,
3rd and 4th floors, RD. No.1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Appellant/
Opp. Party No.1
And
Mr.Challa Venkata Krishna Reddy
S/o.Parusuram Reddy,
Aged about 36 years, Indian,
Occ:Driver, Presently residing
At 9-6-63/A, Anjaiahnagar,
Post Manovikas Nagar,
Secunderabad. Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Ravi Shankar Jhandyala
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Visweswara Rao
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***
This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the order of the District Forum directing it to pay Rs.2,79,477/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment together with damages of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he was the owner of Toyata Qualis bearing No. AP 10V 1030 purchased in Taxi Quota for eking out his livelihood and it was insured with the appellant, insurance company, for Rs.4,01,900/- covering the period 26-8-2006 to 25-8-2007. While so on 02-12-2006, the vehicle met with an accident when it was hired to one Mr.MVS Prasad, and the said fact was intimated to the Police and the insurance company. A surveyor was appointed and the vehicle was shifted to the authorized service centre who gave an estimation at Rs.2,79,477/-. However, the insurance company repudiated the said claim on the ground that the driver was not having valid license to drive the Maxi cab. Assailing the said repudiation, he claimed Rs.2,79,477/- together with interest at 18% p.a. and loss of income of Rs.1,000/- per day from 02-12-2006 till the date of payment, compensation of 50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
The appellant, insurance company, resisted the claim. While admitting the issuance of the policy, it alleged that the vehicle was registered under Taxi quota. The complainant is not a consumer and he was engaged in commercial activity, plying the vehicle for rent. The seating capacity of Toyata Qualis as per registration certificate is 10 and falls under the category of Maxi cab and the driver was authorized to drive LIMV Non Transport and Motor cab. Since the driver was not having valid driving license, the claim was repudiated and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.A1 to A8 marked while the appellant neither filed affidavit evidence nor marked any documents.
The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the vehicle was driven by driver having valid driving license and therefore directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,79,477/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment together with damages of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the vehicle is a Maxi Cab U/s.2(2) of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the driver must be having license to drive Maxi Cab. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard?
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased Toyato Qualis, a light motor vehicle, got it insured with the appellant under insurance policy Ex.A1, covering the period from 26-8-2006 to 25-8-2007. Ex.A1 discloses that the carrying capacity including driver is ‘9’. It was passenger carrying vehicle evidenced from the terms of the policy. On 02-12-2006 the vehicle met with an accident while it was returning from a guest house. Evidently the driver was having Ex.A3, driving license, to drive only LMV, Non transport as well as Transport Motor Cab valid till 27-10-2020 and 14-5-2009. It is not the case of the insurance company that the vehicle was carrying more than the requisite capacity. The complainant has spent Rs.2,79,477/- in the service centre vide Ex.A9 to A11 and the repudiation was on the ground that the driver was not having valid license to drive the maxi cab.
No doubt Section 2(22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines “maxicab” as under:
“maxicab” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or reward;
Driving license has been defined in Section 2(10) to mean the license issued by a competent authority under Chapter II of M.V.Act which authorize the person specified therein to drive otherwise than as a learner, a motor veicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. What all Section 3 states is that no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than ( a motor cab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section (75) unless his driving license specially entitles him to do so. Since he was having license to drive both transport and non-transport vehicle evident from Ex.A3, he was entitled to drive maxi cab. Section 2(7) while defining ‘contract carriage’ which included maxicab as well as motorcab. Since he was having license to drive the said vehicle, it cannot be said that there was any violation of the terms of the policy. The District Forum has awarded the amount based on the documentary evidence placed by the complainant. The repudiation was unjust and we do not see any merits.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.02-11-2010
