BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday  the 10^th  day of September, 2009

C.C. 33/09

Between:

M/s Sri Subramaneswara Transport,

Rep. by its Partner Naga Seshi Reddy,

H.No.10-361,G.C.R. Complex,

Koilkuntla,-518134,

Kurnool  District.

                                                                        …Complainant

-Vs-

M/s The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

D.No.40/358,

2nd floor Bhupal complex,

Kurnool-518001,

Kurnool District.                                         …Opposite Party

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Ramasubba Reddy , Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. N.Isaiah ,  Advocate for opposite party  and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Smt. C.Preethi , Lady Member)

C.C.No.33/09

1.     This consumer complaint  of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay Rs.2,72,665/- with 18%  interest , Rs.20,000/- as compensation  for  mental agony  , and interest at 18% p.a ,  cost of the compliant and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.     The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant is a membership firm doing business for eaking their livelihood and they owns  a lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 6196. The complainant with a bonafied belief that driving license possessed by Lakshmayya is genuine employed said Lakshmayya   as  driver to  their  lorry. On 16-03-2008 at 11-50 P.M the said lorry met with an accident near Narayanareddy Palli bus stop at Rayachoti /Pellur, Main Road and the said lorry was damaged heavily and the same was informed to opposite party  and submitted claim form. But the opposite party  repudiated the claim on the ground that the driving license  possessed by E. Lakshmayya is fake license  and it is not valid. But the complainant submits that he did not violated the conditions knowingly well that the driving license is a fake. Hence there is no violation of policy terms and conditions and the repudiation by opposite party is illegal and seeks for redressal.

3.     In support of their case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of insurance policy and (2) repudiation  letter dated 10-09-2008 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant  in reiteration of their complaint averments and the above documents are marked  as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.

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 contested the case by filling  written version.

5.     The written version of opposite party denies the complaint  as not maintainable either in law or on facts  and admits that the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 6196 of complainant  was insured with them . It also submits that after intimation  of accident the opposite party appointed a surveyor  to assess the damages and the said surveyor  assessed the damages to Rs.2,10,113/- against the claim of the complainant  of Rs.2,72,665/- . After completion of all formalities  it was found that the driver of the lorry at the time of accident was not having a valid  driving license  and it is clear violation of  policy terms and conditions and Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules and hence the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 10-09-2008. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party in repudiating the claim and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any relief and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint.

6.     In support of their case the opposite party relied on the following documents viz, (1) repudiation letter dated 10-09-2008 and, (2) driving license extract issued by RTA , Nandyal and (3) motor Certificate Report (final ) dated 30-05-2008 , besides to the  sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged. The opposite party also relied on the evidence of RW.1 A.Narashimha Reddy.

7.     Hence , the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled  alleging deficiency of service ?

8.     It the case of the complainant  that they  own a  lorry bearing No.AP21W 6196 and the said lorry is insured  with opposite party vide Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of policy No. 433102/31 / 2008 /1036  issued  to  the  complainant  and the said policy is valid from  13-09-2007 to 12-09-2008 . On 16-03-2008  at 11-50 P.M the said lorry met with  accident and was badly damaged. The accident  was informed  to opposite party  and a surveyor  was appointed  and the complainant  submitted claim form. But the opposite party repudiated  the claim vide Ex.A2/B1. The Ex.A2/B1  is the repudiation letter dated 10-09-2008  of opposite party addressed  to the complainant ,  where in , it was stated that  the driver  E.Lakshmaiah holding driving license  No. DLE AP012156732005 and on verification with RTA Nandyal , it was confirmed  that the said driving license  is not issued by RTA Nandyal and the said license is a fraudulent license  and hence the complainant  is not entitled to any amount.

9.     The opposite party in support  of their case got examined on oath  A.Narasihma Reddy, RTO Nandyal as RW.1. The said RW.1 stated that the driving license bearing No. DLE AP 12156732005 of E.Lakshmaiah was not issued by their office. The counsel for opposite party strongly contended that on the basis of evidence of RW.1 ,one thing is clear that the driving license issued to E.Lakshmaiah is  fake one and hence the complainant  is not remaining  entitled to any of the reliefs  under the policy and justified the repudiation made by the Insurance company.

10.    On the other hand  the counsel for complainant strongly  contended that  even if the  driving license  is fake there is nothing on record to show that the  complainant was aware  about the  fakeness  of the license. For this argument , primary reliance  was placed  on the observations of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Laxmi Narian Dhut reported in III (2007) CPJ Pg.13, where in it was held that  when original  license  was fake one, renewal could not cure inherent fatality.

11.    It was further held by the Apex Court that when once a license  is fake on renewal  cannot take away the effect of fake license  and no doubt that a fake license cannot  get its forgery out fit  stripped  off merely on account of  some officer  renewing the  same with or without knowing  it to be forged. No licensing  authority has the power  to renew a fake license  and therefore, a renewal  if at all made cannot transform  a fake license as genuine .

12.    In the light of the above position of  law the decision cited by the complainant reported in 2001 (4) Supreme Court  case page No. 342 has little relevancy for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party also cited a decision  reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court Pg.2008, has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

13.    To sum up , the above discussions and relying  on the supra decision  of Apex Court, in the present case originally the license was a fake one and by renewing it cannot  cure the inherent  fatality , hence the  repudiation  by opposite parties  on the ground that at the relevant  time of the accident the lorry was not  driven by a driver having valid  driving license , is justified and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the relief and the complaint is dismissed without costs.

14.    In the result , the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of September, 2009.

        Sd/-                                  Sd/-                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                    PRESIDENT(FAC)           MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :  Nil           For the opposite parties :

                                           RW.1  Deposition of RW-1dated 01-07-09.

(A.Narasimha Reddy, R.T.O.Nandyal)

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: 

Ex.X1.          Letter of R.T.O.Nandyal dated 27-06-2009  addressed to

                   District Consumer Forum, Kurnool.

             Sd/-                              Sd/-                                        Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT (FAC)               MALE MEMBER           

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties      

Copy was made ready on                :

Copy was dispatched on          :