BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Thrusday the 30th day of August, 2007
C.C. No.30/2007
Annapureddy Venkatarami Reddy, S/o Seshi Reddy,
Brahamanapalli Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. … COMPLAINANT
Verses
M/s .New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented By its Branch Manager,
R.S.Road, Nandyal.
. … OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint coming on this his day for orders in the presence of Sri.G.N.Prasad, Advocate, kurnool for complainant, Sri.Mohammed Ishaq Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party and upon the pursuing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
C.C.No.30/2007
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under C.P.Act seeking a direction on opposite party to pay damages under policy bearing No.811502/ 31/ 05/00965 in the interest of Justice.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that he is the owner of a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP.21W 3778 and 3779 and the said tractor trailer was covered under a comprehensive policy bearing No.811502/31/05 /00965 issued by opposite party for a period of one year, On 11.9.2005 the said tractor while coming out of feild got tilted and met with accident causing heavy damage to the engine. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party office and put a claim for Rs.19,766/- by submitting relevant particulars. The said tractor trailer was inspected by the surveyor of opposite party. Thereafter on 26.10.2005 the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant stating that the driver of the vehicle had no valid license to drive the commercial vehicle of the complainant at the time of accident. But the complainant submits that there is no negligence on part of the complainant and the rejection of the claim is amounting to deficiency of service on part of opposite party.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on his sworn affidavit. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party and suitablely replied to the interrogatories of opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and filled written version.
5. The written version of opposite parties submits that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts, but submits that the complainant’s vehicle met with accident and the claim of the complainant was rejected on 26.10.2005 on the ground that the driver had no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident. It is clearly mentioned in the policy terms and conditions that a person who holds an effective driving license can drive the vehicle of the complainant and requirement of Rule 2 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 should be satisfied. The vehicle of the complainant was registered and covered by the opposite party under commercial vehicle and the driver was holding driving license to drive LMV tractor trailer Non- transport category only and the driver holding driving license LMV tractor trailer Transport category alone can drive it and the driver S.Sultan admittedly had no valid and effective driving license. Therefore, the repudiation by opposite party is justified. The surveyor appointed by this opposite party assessed the damages to Rs.7,000/.- There is absolutely no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) attested true copy of policy bearing No. 611502/31/ 05/00965, (2) Motor claim form, (3) estimation repairs dated 12.9.2005, (4) attested Xerox copy of registration certificate of the vehicle No.AP21W3779, (5) attested Xerox copy of goods carriage permitted, (6) motor survey report (spot dated 10.10.2005), (7) attested xerox copy of repudiation letter dated 26.10.2005 and (8) attested xerox copy of driving license of S.Sultan besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written avernments and sworn affidavit of third party P.S.Mahaboob Hussain. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and the opposite party and third party replied to the interrogatories of complainant, and the above documents are marked as Ex. B1 to B8 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence,the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service ?.
8. The opposite party is not denying the complainant as the owner of the tractor trailer bearing No.811502/31/ 05/00965 and got issued the said tractor – trailer with opposite party and obtained a policy vide Ex.B1. While the said policy was in force the said tractor-trailer met with accident on 11.9.2005 and the complainant submitted claim form vide Ex.B2 will relevant particulars, but to the dismay of the complainant the opposite party repudiated the claim vide Ex.B7 dated 26.10.2005 on the ground that the driver was not holding effective and valid driving license on the date of the accident to drive the complainant’s LMV Tractor-Trailer of transport category.
9. The main contention of opposite party is that the driver of the tractor-trailer has no valid license to drive the complainant’s vehicle in question and it is amply clear from the license of the driver vide Ex. A8, that the license is for driving light Motor Vehicle Non-transport vehicle only and the driver at the time of accident was driving a transport vehicle/commercial vehicle and thus there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party contended that the license of the driver was not having an endorsement authorizing him to drive a Transport/Commercial vehicle of the complainant.
10. It is not disputed that the driver S.Sultan was having a license for driving LMV Tractor-trailer and the complainant’s vehicle is LMV tractor trailer, when once the driver is having a license to drive LMV Tractor – Trailer then the nature of that vehicle is whether transport vehicle or non transport is immaterial. But the opposite party strongly alleges that the vehicle the driver was driving was a transport/commercial vehicle, hence, the driver must posses a transport endorsement license only, on the date of accident the driver was possessing a valid driving license for driving LMV tractor – trailer and there is no material on record to show that he was disqualified from holding such a license at the time of accident. The policy vide Ex.B1 issued to the complainant is for goods carriage commercial vehicle and the opposite party strongly insist for transport endorsement license to be possessed by the driver and there is no material as to show that to a commercial vehicle, the driver should possess a transport endorsement license only, the policy insists the driver should possess an effective driving license and the policy no where insists on the driver having a valid license to drive or to obtain a specific endorsement of transport to drive a commercial vehicle.
11. The question in this case is that whether merely because the LMV tractor – trailer license possessed by the driver S.Sultan was not having an endorsement of transport, the license to drive a LMV tractor-trailer becomes in effective. If that argument is accepted then it would lead to absurd result, in other words a person having a valid driving license to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become dis – abled to drive that vehicle merely because transport endorsement was not there in his license. When once the driver was having a valid license to drive a particular category of vehicle namely LMV, merely because there was no endorsement or authorization to drive a transport vehicle is scored off, it doesn’t take away his liability to drive the vehicle for which he is holding a valid license, the opposite party can not be exonerated of its liability to reimburse the damages caused to the tractor – trailer of the complainant.
12. To sum up, the above discussions exhibits marked and having regard to over all consideration there is no hesitation to hold the opposite party has miserabley failed to substantiate that the LMV Tractor – Trailer driving license possessed by the driver S.Sultan was not authorized to drive the complainant’s tractor-trailer. Therfore, in these circumstances repudiating the claim of the complainant and wholly arbitrary and unjust and amounts to deficiency of service on their part and the complainant is remaining entitled to the reliefs claimed. The decisions relied by the Opposite Party has little relevancy for its appreciation in this case as they are not relevant to this case.
13. In this case the Complainant claimed a sum of Rs.19,766/- but the Insurance surveyor in his report vide Ex.B6 assessed the loss after depreciation to Rs.7,000/- only. Thus, basing on surveyor report Ex.B6 the claim of the Complainant is reduced to Rs.7,000/- which the opposite party has to pay to the Complainant.
14. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- and Rs.500/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the supra award with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the open bench this is the 30th August, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-Nil
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Attested true copy of policy No.611502 /31/05/ 00965.
(in 3 papers)
Ex.B2. Motor claim form (in 4 papers) .
Ex.B3. Estimation repairs letter dated 12.9.2005.
Ex.B4. Attested xerox copy of Registration certificate of the
Vehicle No. AP 21 W 3779.
Ex.B5. Attested Xerox copy of goods carriage permit.
Ex.B6. Motor survey report (spot) dated 10.10.2005
(No. in 3 papers)
Ex.B7. Attested Xerox copy of repudiation letter,
Dated 26.10.2005.
Ex.B8. Attested xerox copy of driving license of S.Sultan
(No. in 4 papers).
s
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.G.N.Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.Mohammed Ishaq Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
