BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.831 OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.68 OF 2008, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II TIRUPATHI
Between:
Pasupuleti Bhaskar S/o P.Venkatramaiah
Hindu, aged 34 years, Occ: unemployee
R.Mallavaram Village, Kummaravaripalli
Post, Renugunta Mandal, Chittoor Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
The Divisional Manager
United India Insurance Company
Sridevi Complex, Tirupati
Chittoor Dist.
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant Sri G.Ramaiah Pillai
Counsel for the Respondent Sri V.Sambasiva Rao
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
(Typed to the dictation of Smt Merla Shreesha, Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.68 of 2008 on the file of District Forum-II, Tirupathi, the complainant filed this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that on 14.10.2005, the complainant purchased a tractor and trailer to eke out his livelihood under self employment from Kishan Agro Agencies who is the authorised dealer for Swaraj Tractor by availing loan from Andhra Bank by hypothecating the vehicle. Subsequently the complainant got registered the vehicle bearing No.AP 03W 3707 from RTA and insured the same with the opposite party for the period from 17.10.2005 to 16.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.3,97,500/- on payment of premium of Rs.12,345/-. On 11.9.2006 after unloading the grass at GD Nellore while on return journey the said tractor and trailer turned turtile on road side due to negligent driving of the driver and caused death of a coolie and three persons were injured. A case was registered in Crime No.119 of 2006 u/s 304-A IPC by the police Renigunta. The vehicle was damaged and the accident was reported to the opposite party. Opposite party deputed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle on the spot and removed the vehicle for repairs. The complainant claimed repairs charges at Rs.55,480/- with all vouchers on 20.9.2006, but the opposite party by its letter dated 8.2.2007 repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver was having non-transport license at the time of accident and as such there was no sufficient valid driving license to the drive the tractor and trailer. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 15.4.2008 to the opposite party to which the opposite party gave reply dated 22.4.2008 justifying the repudiation. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.55,480/- towards repairs charges of the damaged vehicle along with compensation and costs.
Opposite party filed counter admitting that the complainant has insured his vehicle AP 03 W 3707 Swaraj Tractor 735FE and stated that the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident did not possess valid license to drive the transport vehicle. In fact the vehicle was insured for transport of grass and driven by a person who did not possess valid license to drive the transport vehicle. The vehicle is not used for agricultural purpose or for personal driving by the driver. Opposite party addressed a letter to A.P. Transport Department, RTA, Tirupathi and received a reply on 23.1.2007 to the effect that the driver is not eligible to drive public tractor-trailer and hence the repudiation is justified.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs.A1 to A16 filed by the complainant and Exs.B1 and B2 by opposite party, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal.
It is the complainant’s case that he purchased a tractor cum trailor on 14-10-2005 and insured with opposite party for the period from 17-10-2005 to 16-10-2006 vide Ex.A8. Ex.A7 is the goods carriage permit from RTA. On 11-9-2006 the tractor-cum-trailor loaded with grass was taken to GD, Nellore and met with an accident on the return journey resulting in the death of P.Mani, one of the coolies and injuring 3 coolies travelling in the said tractor. An FIR was registered vide Ex.A9 and the same was reported to the opposite party for settlement of the claim of Rs.55,480/- incurred towards repair charges. A surveyor was deputed to assess the damage but on 8-2-2007, the opposite party vide Ex.B2 addressed a letter to the complainant repudiating the claim on the ground that the driver was holding a non transport license at the time of the accident.
The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party filed written arguments relied on the decision of the apex court in New India Assurance Company Limited V. Prabulal in Civil Appeal No.5539/2007 dated 30-11-2007 that clauses 14, 21, 28 and 47 of Section 2 of Motor Vehicle’s Act that if a vehicle is an LMV but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving license has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of M.V.Act and if it is not endorsed, the person holding the driving license of LMV cannot drive a transport vehicle. In the instant case the tractor-cum-trailor is a transport vehicle and as per Ex.A6 which is the certificate of registration, the vehicle class is termed as “tractor-LMV transport”. The goods carriage permit given by RTA, vide Ex.A7 also establishes that this is a goods carrying transport vehicle. The trailor purpose given in Ex.A8 policy schedule is ‘non agricultural’. Ex.B1 is the driving license of the said driver Ankaiah.P who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. This exhibit B1 shows that the driving license is for a non transport vehicle and there is no endorsement on his license that he is authorized to drive a transport vehicle. We rely on the decision of the apex court in New India Assurance Company Limited V. Prabulal reported in AIR (2008) SC 614 in which it was held that the driver driving a transport vehicle must have an endorsement on his license saying transport. Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicle’s Act as:
Transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.
In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that vide ex.A7, the complainant got a goods carriage permit on this tractor-cum-trailor and falls under the definition of transport vehicle and since the driver did not have the said endorsement entitling him to drive the subject vehicle, we are of the considered view that the repudiation by the respondent/opposite party is justified. We see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM/KMK Dt.28-9-2010
