Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/192/2011

P. Appalaswamy Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sontyana Mohan Rao

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:01-06-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:30-03-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                              Monday, the 30^th day of March, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.192/2011

Between:-

Sri P. Appalaswamy Naidu, S/o late

Surapu Naidu, Hindu, aged 56 years,

residing at Pedda Puriti Village, Regidi,

Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District-532 518.

….. Complainant

And:-

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., rep.

by its Authorized Signatory, D. No. 47-14-5, (403),

3^rd Floor, Eswar Paradise, Dwarakanagar, Main Road,

Visakhapatnam-530 016.

                                                                                         …  Opposite Party

                           

          This case coming on 19.02.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Sontyana Mohan Rao, Sri I. Satya Sai Ram and Sri D. Archana, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri D. Siva Prasad, Advocate for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an order in his favour and against the Opposite Party: a) To pay the estimated cost of repairs of Rs.1,27,500/- (Rupees One lakh twenty seven thousand and five hundred only) to the Complainant, b) To pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of causing repair and spending amount by the Complainant till the date of realization, c) To pay damages for the loss of the work at the rate of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) per day from the date of extent i.e., 14.12.2010 till the date, d) To award costs, and e) To grant such other relief or reliefs the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

 

2.       The Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

           

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the Complainant is the absolute owner of a Tractor and Trailer viz., Sonalika, Sonalika DI 740 bearing Registered Nos. AP 30 V 4197 and AP 30 V 4198.   The Opposite Party is the Insurance Company.   The Complainant insured his Tractor and Trailer with the Opposite Party under Policy Certificate No.1802702343000230 insured from 08.05.2010 to midnight 07.05.2011.    The Complainant stated that on 14.12.2010, the driver of the Complainant by name Meesala Ramana, S/o Parasa Naidu was driving the said tractor from Palakonda to Seethammapeta and while the tractor reached near Sirikonda Village at about 10:40 a.m. one vehicle 108 Ambulance bearing Registered No. AP 29 U 4654 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner.   The driver of the 108 Ambulance lost his control and dashed against the Complainant’s tractor and hence caused immense damage to the tractor of the Complainant.    The Complainant stated that the Complainant’s driver gave a complaint before the SHO, Palakonda and after the enquiry, the SHO, Palakonda did not register the case as the vehicle is 108 ambulance being the public service oriented vehicle, imposed fine on the driver of the tractor and issued a certificate dated 16.12.2010 to that effect.    The insurance company was immediately intimated about the loss of damage.   The insurance company approached on claim intimation and deputed a surveyor.   The surveyor has submitted his report along with the claim documents submitted by the Complainant.   The Opposite Party has addressed a letter dated 15.02.2011 to the Complainant stating that the driving license of the driver of the tractor  expired on 14.09.2009 and there is no valid driving licence to the driver of the tractor at the time of accident and that the Opposite Party could not consider the claim of the Complainant.   The Complainant further stated that he got issued a registered lawyer’s notice dated 11.03.2011 and having received the same, the Opposite Party did not respond.   The accident occurred on 14.12.2010 and from them onwards the tractor is lying un-repaired due to non co-operation of the Opposite Party and the Complainant got surveyed the loss by obtaining an estimation of the damaged parts from Sri Surya International Tractor Service at Peddapadu Road, Srikakulam, according to which the estimation of cost of repairs would be Rs.1,27,500/- (Rupees One lakh twenty seven thousand and five hundred only) as on 15.12.2010.    As the vehicle being used for agricultural purpose, from December 2010 the Complainant is put to obstructions and loss due to non repair of the tractor which involves huge investment beyond the reach of the Complainant.    Unless the tractor was repaired the loss due to damages as estimated will be increased in addition due to loss of work, until the tractor was repaired and every day is a loss of work to the Complainant and the Opposite Party is liable to bear every day’s loss.   The Complainant already demanded the Opposite Party to cause repair the damaged parts or pay compensation but the Opposite Party failed to do so.    As the parts of the tractor are getting rusted and further damages in addition to the loss of work and to avoid such loss, the Complainant may at any time caused repair by spending the amount.   The Complainant so far could not cause repair as the amount involved in repairing is huge amount.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A8 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that after receipt of the receipt of the Survey Report as well as Claim Form, vehicle documents along with driving licence copy of the driver of the Complainant viz., M. Ramana, as per the copy of the D.L on the date of accident on 14.12.2009, the driver of the Complainant was not at all having valid effective transport driving licence to drive the transport tractor-trailer belonging to the Complainant, as per the policy conditions and as per the provisions of the act.    The Opposite Party-Insurance Company stated that as per the Section-3,5,10,11,14 and 15 of MV Act, in order to drive the specified class of the motor vehicles, the driver shall possess the effective, subsisting ands specified class of driving license to drive the specified class of motor vehicles with specified class motor vehicles endorsement.   The Opposite Party stated that as per the RC copies submitted by the Complainant, the tractor trailer belongs to the Complainant; by virtue of its registration number and permit granted by the authorities, the vehicle is goods carrying transport vehicle.   The Opposite Party-Insurance Company stated that as per the driving license copy submitted by the Complainant, the “transport driving licence” of the driver of the Complainant expired on 14.09.2009,   further driver of the Complainant was not at all authorized to drive the transport vehicles on the date of accident on 14.12.2010.   The Opposite Party further stated that as per the Sec.15 of the Act the D.L to be renewed within 30 days from the date of expiry, as per the copy D.L of the driver of the R-1, same is not at all renewed on the date of accident on 14.12.2010.   Therefore, on the date of the accident, the driver of the Complainant was not at all authorized to drive the goods carrying transport tractor-trailer and driving vehicle without specified class of the D.L amounts to breach of conditions of the policy and provisions of the act.   The Opposite Party stated also that for the reasons stated supra, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party as the claim of the Complainant is not at all admissible, as per the policy conditions and as per the provisions of the act.    The Opposite Party is not at all liable to pay the alleged estimated loss amount of Rs.1,27,500/- with interest or damages or costs of the proceedings, the Opposite Party is not at all liable to pay even the loss assessed by the surveyor an amount of Rs.44,183/-.     

 

6.       The Opposite Party filed an affidavit besides written arguments to buttress its contention.   Exs.B1 to B7 are marked for Opposite Party.

 

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party.

         

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that it is settled law (“D.L. Narayana Vs. S. Ravi Kumar, 1995 (1) ALD 81”) that “ A light motor vehicle-tractor drawn with a trailor, having unladen weight of 4000 kg. can be construed as a light vehicle.   Insurance company cannot  avoid liability when the driver of the trailer has a licence to drive a light vehicle”.   Ex.A8 driving licence clearly shows that the driver of the accident vehicle Meesala Ramana holds a licence to drive a LMV (“light motor vehicle”) till September, 2024.   Ignoring this authoritative fact, the Opposite Party picked up an irrelevant fact that the said Ramana held a licence to drive a motor car (transport) till September, 2009 only.    Based on this irrelevant fact the Opposite Party unfairly, callously, and negligently repudiated the insurance claim of the Complainant, though the driver of the accident vehicle is holding a valid licence to drive a LMV a Tractor drawn with a trailer, till to date.    As such, though the driver of the accident vehicle is having a valid licence to drive the accident vehicle the Opposite Party failed to pay the estimated cost of repairs of Rs.1,27,500/- to the Complainant.    Moreover, the Opposite Party did not challenge the estimate of repairs (Ex.A4) filed by the Complainant on item cost Vs. item cost basis  Ex.B6 insurance surveyor estimates does not counter any item put in Ex.A4 estimate of repairs.   So, we have to conclude that the estimated cost of repairs of Rs.1,27,500/- as in Ex.A4 is correct.   In the circumstances, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant without any valid reason.   So, we hold that there is outright deficiency of service cum unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.   The Complainant is entitled to get the cost of repairs of Rs.1,27,500/- with interest from the date of accident till the date of actual realization.   As the deficiency of service cum unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party should have caused much physical and financial hardship besides mental agony to the Complainant, he is entitled to suitable compensation.   Moreover, as the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service cum unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party he is entitled to costs of this Complaint too.

 

9.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Party to pay: a) the estimated cost of repairs of Rs.1,27,500/- (Rupees One lakh twenty seven thousand and five hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.12.2010 till the date of actual realization, b) a compensation of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of March, 2015.

      Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                       Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	08.05.2010	Vehicle Certificate cum Policy Schedule issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant.	Original
Ex.A02	16.12.2010	Challan No.724933 issued by the Inspector of Police, Palakonda Circle, Srikakulam	Original
EX.A03	16.12.2010	Certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Palakonda Circle, Srikakulam.	Original
Ex.A04		Estimation issued by Sri Surya International Tractor Services, Peddapadu Road, Srikakulam.	Original
Ex.A05	15.02.2011	Letter addressed by the OP to the Complainant	Original
Ex.A06	11.03.2011	Registered Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to OP	Office copy
Ex.A07	14.12.2010	Sakshi Local News Paper	Original
Ex.A08	15.09.2004	Driving Licence of the Complainant’s driver.	Original

 

For the Opposite Party:-                 

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	08.05.2010	Policy copy issued by the OP to the Complainant with drivers clause	Original
Ex.B02	18.07.2011	Form-24 B – Register of Motor Vehicle belong to the Complainant	Original
Ex.B03	24.01.2009	RC extract of the trailer belong the Complainant	Original
Ex.B04	18.07.2011	Goods Carriage Permit of the Complainant	Original
Ex.B05	15.09.2004	Grant of issue of Driving Licence of the Complainant	Original
Ex.B06	14.12.2010	Surveyor Report	Original
Ex.B07	15.02.2011	Letter issued by the OP to the Complainant	Office copy

 

      Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                           Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member