Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/75/2016

M.Sakunthala, W/o M.Rajasekhara Reddy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. By its Authorized Officer - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

26 Jul 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 17.08.2016

Order Date:26.07.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.75/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

M.Sakunthala,

W/o. M.Rajasekhara Reddy, (Court Staff,

Working at Tirupati Courts),

Hindu, aged about 45 years,

D.No.18-1-702/A, Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                               … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

M/s. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorised Officer,

Having its office at:

D.No.19-11-19, 2^nd Floor, Opp. Andhra Bank,

Near Ramanuja Circle,

Tiruchanoor Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on   .07.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for complainant, and Sri.Premkumar Karanam, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite party for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.47,612/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of payment till realization,      2) to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant, 3) to direct the opposite party to pay the costs of the complaint, and to pass such other order or further reliefs, as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.    

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the complainant purchased Innova 2.5G (E3) BSIII (8S), Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., from Harsha Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Tirupati, on 12.10.2015, under the Sale Certificate dt:12.10.2015. The transport department also given Certificate of Registration dt:26.10.2015 vide Registration No.AP-03-TD-4071. The RTA Chittoor, has given permit under Form-PC vide No. PC AP003/9461/PC/2015 dt:23.11.2015. The complainant got the vehicle insured with the opposite party under policy No.TIT/91408681 dt:12.10.2015, which is valid from 12.10.2015 to 11.10.2016.

3.  That the complainant used the vehicle to go to RTA Chittoor, for getting permit and to go to temple for performing pooja only, and she did not use the vehicle for any other purpose. The RTA Chittoor directed the complainant to appear on 17.11.2015 along with the vehicle to get the permit. Accordingly on 17.11.2015 in the first hours, the complainant moved the vehicle to the road, an unknown vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her vehicle and escaped without stopping the vehicle. Due to the said unexpected incident, she could not note the registration number of the vehicle, which hit the vehicle in question. It is a hit and run case, as such she could not made any complaint.

4.  Immediately she informed about the accident to the opposite party, who inturn directed the complainant to get the vehicle repaired at Harsha Toyoto, Tirupati, and asked the complainant to submit the invoice bills enabling her to make the loss good. Accordingly, she got repaired the vehicle with Harsha Toyota Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The cost was estimated as Rs.47,612/- under the invoice dt:24.11.2015. The complainant paid the said amount on 24.11.2015 vide receipt No.SRP-15-10754 and claimed the said amount from the opposite party. But the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dt:04.01.2016 stating that the complainant has violated the provisions of Section-66 of M.V.Act 1988. Infact no such violation is there on the part of the complainant. The opposite party is liable to pay the claim. The complainant got issued notice dt:21.04.2016, for which the opposite party neither gave reply nor complied with. Hence the complaint.

5.  The opposite party filed the written version with formal denial of complaint allegations from paragraphs 1 to 7. The opposite party specifically contended that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 12.10.2015 and immediately insured the vehicle with the opposite party as a commercial vehicle under “Commercial Vehicle Package Policy” for a period of one year from 12.10.2015 to 11.10.2016, bearing policy No.TIT/914408681, subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of Section-64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The vehicle was registered as AP-03-TD-4071 on 26.10.2015 as “Maxi Cab” (Passenger carrying commercial vehicle).

6.   That immediately after intimation of the alleged accident, opposite party deputed its surveyor Sri.L.Ravi Teja, to conduct survey and submitted his report. Accordingly, the surveyor conducted survey and filed his report. After scrutinizing the documents submitted along with the claim forms by the complainant and surveyor report, the opposite party found that the vehicle was insured with the opposite party as commercial vehicle and as on the date of accident, the said vehicle was plied in public place without any permit, thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

7.  That after receiving all the required documents from the complainant, the opposite party processed the claim and came to conclusion basing on the surveyor report and the records submitted by the complainant, that the alleged accident was occurred on 17.11.2015 and the complainant obtained permit for the vehicle on 23.11.2015 i.e. after 6 days of the accident. Hence the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, claim is repudiated and informed the same to the complainant by way of letter dt:04.01.2016.

8.  That after receipt of the letter, the complainant got issued notice dt:21.04.2016 demanding the opposite party to settle her claim. As the opposite party already intimated the complainant that her claim was repudiated, it did not give reply to the said notice. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the vehicle should not be used in contravention of the provisions of M.V.Act, but the complainant violated the provisions of Section-66 of the M.V.Act, by plying the vehicle without permit as on the date of accident. The vehicle had no permit to ply.  Though the vehicle was registered on 26.10.2015 with RTA Tirupati, complainant did not obtain permit till 17.11.2015. Therefore, repudiation is proper and justified. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9.  The complainant filed her affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. The respondent filed his affidavit as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.

10.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether the complainant’s vehicle is a commercial vehicle and it was

        plied without permit?

(ii).  Whether the repudiation dt:04.01.2016 is justified?

(iii).  To what relief?                   

11.  Point No.(i):- to answer this point, the complainant has to establish that the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-TD-4071, is not a commercial vehicle and that it was not plied without any permit and also to establish that as on the date of accident i.e. by 17.11.2015, the transport authority has given permit to ply the vehicle in any public place. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that by the date of accident, the vehicle is not a commercial vehicle or it was not insured as commercial vehicle. That on 17.11.2015, while the vehicle was taking to the office of transport authority, when the vehicle was moved from the house of the complainant and when it reached the road, an unknown vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the complainant’s vehicle and went away. The complainant could not see the number of the vehicle, which hit her vehicle and it is a case of “hit and run” and she did not lodged any complaint. Whether it is a hit and run case or otherwise is to be determined by the investigating agency. The learned counsel for the complainant also argued that the word “Maxi Cab” is the name of the vehicle, but not the purpose for which the vehicle was purchased. As per Ex.A1 Sale Certificate dt:12.10.2015, name of the vehicle is shown as “Innova 2.5G (E3) BSIII(8S)”, Class of the Vehicle is mentioned as “Maxi Cab”. The same version was also found place in Ex.A2. When coming to Ex.A3 permit, it was mentioned that permit in respect of a particular contract carriage No.P.C. : AP003/9461/PC/2015, Registration Mark is AP-03-TD-4071. In Ex.A3 permit also, it is mentioned Class of the Vehicle as Maxi Cab. The term Maxi Cab is defined under Section-2, Sub Section-22 of M.V.Act 1988 as “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. So, “Maxi Cab” is well defined under Section-2, Sub Section-22 of the M.V.Act, as such it can be said that Maxi Cab is not the name of the vehicle, but nature of the vehicle and purpose for which the vehicle was purchased. The name of the vehicle is Innova. Coming to Ex.A4 Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule, issued by the opposite party on 12.10.2015 itself, i.e. on the date of purchase of the vehicle, the policy is “Commercial Vehicle Package Policy” issued at 16.46 hours on 12.10.2015 under Policy No.TIT/91408681, for one year commencing from 12.10.2015  to midnight on 11.10.2016.

12.  It is pertinent to mention that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 12.10.2015, its registration was held on 26.10.2015. The accident was occurred on 17.11.2015 and the permit was obtained by the complainant on 23.11.2015 i.e. 6 days after the alleged accident. So, it is clear that as on the date of accident, no permit for the vehicle to run in any public place. For the reasons best known, the complainant did not mention where the accident took place, and at what time the accident took place, who was the driver driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident, whether the said driver has valid and effective driving license by the time of accident. Apart from it, admittedly no complaint is lodged by the complainant with regard to the said accident before any police. These crucial points were not found place in the complaint, evidence affidavit of P.W.1 and also in the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant. As could be seen from Ex.B1 Certificate of Insurance Cum Policy Schedule, the vehicle is a commercial vehicle insured under “Commercial Vehicle Package Policy”. Then Ex.B2 is the Surveyor Report submitted by the surveyor by name Ravi Teja Lingamagunta. Survey was held on 18.11.2015 i.e. on the next day of accident. The vehicle was found only in Harsha Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Why the vehicle was moved from the place of accident. In the surveyor report, the driver name was mentioned as Chinna Venkata Ramana, aged about 43 years,  having Transport-LMV license and he was a paid driver. The finding of the surveyor is, at the time of accident does not have valid permit. In surveyor report Ex.B2 also the surveyor did not mention time of accident, place of accident, but it was mentioned that as per insurer reference he prepared the final report. Ex.B3 is the repudiation letter dt:04.01.2016.

13. So, it is clear by the above detailed discussion that as on the date of accident i.e. 17.11.2015, the vehicle has no permit to ply though it was registered. The permit was obtained by the complainant about 6 days after the accident i.e. subsequent to accident. It is also further clear that the complainant has plied the vehicle in public place without permit, which amounts to violation of Section-66 of the M.V.Act 1988. Section-66(1) shows that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. So, the complainant is not supposed to ply the vehicle in any public place, except only when she got permit from the transport authority. Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant has violated the provisions of Section-66 of the M.V.Act 1988 is quite apt. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has violated the provisions of Section-66 of the M.V.Act 1988, and the vehicle was plied without permit, that the vehicle is insured as a commercial vehicle. Therefore, the complainant is not only violated Section-66 of the M.V.Act, but also violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, this point is answered.

14.  Point  No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 12.10.2015 and it was registered on 26.10.2015. It was also insured with the opposite party on 12.10.2015 under Ex.B1 as Commercial Vehicle Package Policy. That the accident occurred on 17.11.2015, permit was obtained by the complainant on 23.11.2015 i.e. 6 days after the accident. So, as on the date of accident, no permit was given to the complainant to ply the vehicle in question in any public place. That apart no complaint was lodged in any police station with regard to the accident and no place of accident or time of accident were mentioned anywhere in the complaint or evidence affidavit or in the written arguments of the complainant. When the vehicle was plied without permit in contravention of the provisions of Section-66 of the M.V.Act 1988, the complainant is not entitled for the claim and repudiation under Ex.B3 is justified. In this regard, I am relying on a decision reported in III (2017) CPJ 54 Uttarakhand SCDRC – Darwan Singh Koranga Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – in which their Lordships held that “C.P.Act 1986 – Section 2(1)(g), 15 – Insurance – Accident of vehicle – Surveyor appointed – Permit condition – Violation – Claim repudiated – Alleged deficiency in service – District Forum dismissed complaint – Hence appeal – No permit was granted to complainant by Transport Authority in respect of vehicle – Complainant applied for grant of permit after date of accident – On date of accident, vehicle was not having valid permit and vehicle was being plied without valid permit in contravention of provisions of Section-66 of M.V.Act – Repudiation justified.  At Para.7 of the decision their Lordships held that the insured vehicle met with an accident on 18.10.2008. Letter dt:04.11.2008 of the Regional Transport Officer, Haldwani, clearly reveals that no permit was granted to the complainant by the Transport Authority in respect of the vehicle in question. The complainant had applied for the grant of permit on 20.10.2008, i.e. after the date of the accident. The permit was granted to the complainant on 09.01.2009. Thus, it is very clear that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was not having a valid permit and the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit in contravention of the provisions of Section-66 of the M.V.Act 1988 as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hence the Insurance Company was completely justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. So, in this case also, the complainant has plied the vehicle on the date of accident without any permit in contravention of Section-66 of the M.V.Act 1988. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the repudiation under Ex.B3 letter given by the opposite party is quite justified. Accordingly, this point is answered.

15.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has plied the vehicle in a public place without permit and met with an accident on 17.11.2015, and 6 days thereafter the complainant has obtained the permit. So, it is clear that on the date of accident, the vehicle was not having permit to ply in any public place. But the complainant plied the vehicle in contravention of provisions of Section-66 of M.V.Act 1988 and also violating the provisions of insurance policy under Ex.B1. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                                          

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 26^th day of July, 2017.

 

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: M. Sakunthala (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: V. Jagmohan Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Sale Certificate (Form-21) (Notarized attested photo copy) Dt: 12.10.2015.
	Certificate of Registration (Form-23) (Notarized attested photo copy)           Dt: 26.10.2015.
	Transport Permit (RTA CHITTOOR No. P.C. : AP003/9461/PC/2015) (Notarized attested photo copy) Dt: 23.11.2015.
	Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule. Policy No.TIT/91408681. (Notarized attested photo copy) Dt:12.10.2015.
	True copy of Tax/Sale Invoice from TOYOTA Harsha Auto Agencies PVT Ltd.,Tirupati, Chittoor District. Dt: 24/11/2015.
	Letter of the Opposite Party. Dt: 04.01.2016. (Notarized attested photo copy).
	Office copy of the Legal Notice. Dt: 21.04.2016.
	Acknowledgement Card. Dt: 25.04.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	True copy of the policy issued to the complainant vehicle filed by the opposite party. Period of Insurance: 12.10.2015 to 11.10.2016.
	True copy of Motor Final Survey Report submitted by the Surveyor filed by the Opposite Party. Dt: 09.02.2017.
	True copy of Repudiation letter sent to the complainant filed by the Opposite Party. Dt: 04.01.2016.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

     

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

         

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.