Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/270/2012

Singaraju Rama Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

C.R. Vasantha Kumar

10 Jul 2015

ORDER

                  Reg. of the Complaint:27-08-2012                                                                                                                                     Date of Order:10-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.270/2012

 

BETWEEN:

SRI SINGARAJU RAMA RAO S/O LATE VENKATA RAO,

HINDU, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT “D” BLOCK NO.202,

JEEVAN VISAKHA LIC APARTMENTS, M.M.T.C.COLONY,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

…Complainant

AND:

M/S BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,

REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANANGER, D.NO.10-1-44/9,

3^RD FLOOR, PEEJAY PLAZA, VIP ROAD,

CBM COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 016.

…Opposite Party

 

This case coming on 24-06-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of   SRI C.R.VASANTHA KUMAR, Advocate for the Complainant, and of                                     SRI SYED MOINUDDIN, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

 (As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                               

 

1.       The Complainant filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party, directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.10,334/- with interest from 12-01-2012 till the date of realization, Rs.10,000/- towards Transport Expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, Rs.3,000/- towards costs.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the 1^st OP is dealing in General Insurance Policies and he availed their services by Insuring Maruti 800 Non A/c Car and the OP issued policy after receiving consideration and when a private van caused certain damages to his car on 01-01-2012, he handed over car for repairs and in turn they gave estimation and after its repairs, he preferred the insurance claim for Rs.10,334/- with the OP and after verification, the surveyor passed a remark as Bogus License. Based on that information from RTO, Vizianagaram wherein the validity period appears to have been valid upto 12-11-2006 instead of 12-11-2021 which is subsequent to the issuance of manual license issued to him and the insurance company sent letter that is claim was repudiated as the driving license was expired on 12-11-2006.

3.       Than he sent the original license to the agent at Vizianagaram and find out the reality from the original records of RTI Office who are after verifying record got altered the complainant’s driving license duly recording the valid period upto 18-04-2017 and the same sent to him by retaining the original driving license with them. The OP without verification of driving license repudiated their claim for no fault. Since OP repudiated their claim without proper verification of record.

4.       The case of the Opposite Party, denying the material averments of the complaint is that as per the information provided by RTO Viianagaram  dated 13-01-2012, the license of the complainant was issued on 13-11-2011 and at the time of issuance of the license the age of the license is very important and his age as on the date of issuance of license was 58 years and the license for any person who is aged over and above 50 years is given for 5  years and thus the license of the complainant was issued upto 12-11-2006 and he was supposed to renew the said license by 13-11-2006 after undergoing medical test as it is mandatory to sent the application for medical test more particularly eye test/ vision but as per the record of the RTO, the said license of the complainant was not renewed after 12-11-2006 and subsequent alleged renewal as narrated that it was sent to the agent and the same was altered by RTO Vizianagaram is false. Thus,  the license produced by the complainant is fake and fabricated one as against the driving license  extract used by the RTO Vizianagaram whereunder the validity of the license was shown upto 12-11-2006.

5.       That the contract of  insuance is a contract on utmost good faith and both parties signs the same are bound by terms and conditions. In this particular case,  the complaint has violated the “exclusion clause” and more particularly, the driving license clause which states that any person including the insured can   drive the vehicle provided that person holding an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license provided also with the persons holding an effective learners license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. As per their investigation, the complainant not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident. As such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

6.       To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, he field his affidavit and got marked Exhibit A1 to A8. On the other hand, on behalf of the OP, they filed their affidavits  and Exhibits B1 to B3 were marked.

7.       Exhibit A1 is the C Book of the Car, dated 13-11-2011, Exhibit A2 is the Insurance Policy, dated 28-09-2011, Exhibit A3 is the Driving License, dated 13-11-2011, Exhibit A4 is the Repair charges bill, dated 07-01-2012, Exhibit A5 is the Insurance Company Letter, dated 17-01-2012, Exhibit A6 is the Driving License, dated 13-11-2011, Exhibit A7 is the letter from Complainant, dated 26-04-2012 and Exhibit A8 is the Reply from Opposite party, dated 04-05-2012.

8.       Exhibit B1 is the Driving License, dated 14-01-2015, Exhibit B2 is the Letter addressed by the OP, dated 17-01-2012 and Exhibit B3 is the Postal Acknowledgement, dated 19-01-2012 and Exhibit B4 is the Grant of issuance of driving license.

9.       Opposite Party filed their written arguments.

10.     Heard oral arguments from both sides.

Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.    As seen from pleadings, the question in controversy is whether the driver of the vehicle i.e., the complainant herein is having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. To show that the driver was not having valid driving license, OP relied upon Exhibit B1 to B3. Exhibit B1 is the letter addressed by the OPs to the complainant informing as on the date of the Accident, he was not having valid driving license as a result, the claim put forwarded by him was repudiated.  Exhibit B2 is the driving license stated to have been issued by the licensing authority Vizianagaram in the name of the complainant showing that the license was valid up to 12-11-2006 (non transport) Exhibit B3 is the acknowledgement in token of receipt of Exhibit B1. Exhibit B4 is the valid driving license  stand in the name of the complainant herein showing his Date of birth as 15-10-1943 and license issued on 13-11-2001 which was valid upto non transport 18-04-2017 and it appears as seen from Exhibit B 2 to B4 that as on the date of the accident under which the claims of the complainant stated to have been repudiated i.e., 01-01-2012, the complainant was not holding driving license.

12.     To disprove the contention of the OPs, the complainant relied upon Exhibit A1 C-Book of the Car and A2 is the Insurance policy A3, driving license attested by competent authority issued in the name of the complainant which is valid from 13-11-2001 to 12-11-2021 issued on 13-11-2001 by Competent Authority showing his date of birth of the complainant as 15-10-1943. It is evident as seen from Exhibit A3, the driving license in favour of the complainant was issued for a period of 20 years. It further appears that the license issued is manual.  On scrutiny of the evidence of the complainant coupled with Exhibit A2, it is evident that the complainant is holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident. According to OP, it is a fake license. Therefore, the burden shifts on OP to rebut the same. He has not summoned the relevant RT Authorities to cause production of the relevant record. They did not take any steps for summoning the same. If really the contention of OP as contended by him that Exhibit A3 is a fake one what prevented them to take steps are not explained by OP.  In the absence of contra evidence let in by the OP, it can be held that the license produced by the complainant for a period of 20 years issued in the year 2011 is said to be a true one. It appears by virtue of the age of the complainant during the year of 2011, the Licensing Authority might have issued Driving License in favour of the complainant for a period of 20 years.  Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant was having valid driving license on the date of the accident. As such the acts of the OP without verifying the truth or otherwise of the license comes under the definition of the deficiency of service.  Therefore, the complaint is entitled for the reliefs sought for.

13.     Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion is, what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   It is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A2 is commercial in nature. At the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix the rate of interest @ 9% p.a. from 12-01-2012.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

14.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is an un-disputed fact that the Opposite Parties did not pay the sum assured to the complainant.   Naturally, that might have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 5,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.5,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

15.     Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our   part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainants ought         not have to approach this Forum had his claim for payment of Rs.10,334/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the    Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are          awarded.

16.     In the light of our discussion, referred supra, the complainant is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.10,334/-  with interest for the said sum @ 9% only from 12-01-2012, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,500/-.

17.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in the part directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,334/- (Rupees Ten Thousand and Three hundred and thirty four only) with subsequent interest @ 9% p.a., from 12-01-2012, till the date of realization, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs to the complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 10^th day of July, 2015.       

 

 

Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                           Sd/-               

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT  

    

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	13-11-2001	C Book of the Car	Photocopy
A2	28-09-2011	Insurance Policy	Photocopy
A3	13-11-2011	Driving license of the Complainant	Photocopy
A4	07-01-2012	Repair charges bill	Photocopy
A5	17-01-2012	Insurance Company letter	Photocopy
A6	13-01-2011	Driving License of the complainant	Photocopy
A7	26-04-2012	Letter from Complainant	Photocopy
A8	04-05-2012	Reply from Opposite party	Original

 

For the Opposite Parties:-          

 

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	14-01-2012	Driving License Extract issued by RTA, Vizianagaram	Original
B2	17-01-2012	Letter addressed by the Op to the complainant with postal receipt	Office copy
B3	19-01-2012	Postal Acknowledgement of the complainant	Original
B4	13-11-2001	Grant of Issuance of Driving license	Original

 

 

Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                           Sd/-               

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT