Date of Filing: 05.11.2014
Date of Order: 07.08.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. Kasturi, B.Com., LLM., MEMBER.
Tuesday, the 7th day of August, 2018
C.C.No.623 /2014
Between
Mrs.Mumtaz Patel, W/o. Munaf Patel,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Doctor,
Resident of Flat No.701, Jabar Apartments,
R.P. Road, Secunderabad – 500003.
Rep. by her G.P.A. Holder,
Sri Abdul Kadar Patel, S/o. Mohd Patel,
Aged 65 years. ……Complainant
And
M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch office, 5-5-677/679,
Sana Plaza Goshamahal,
Hyderabad
Rep. by its Branch Manager. ….Opposite Party
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. S.Raj Kumar & R.Reddy Shekar
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Sri M.Guru Dutt & P.Ramesh Babu
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest thereon at 18% p.a., from the date of complainant till the date of realization and after further sum of Rs.80,000/- towards as compensation for causing mental agony and sufferings by Opposite Party by its deficiency of service in honouring the policy and to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
1. The complainant case in brief is she is the owner of the Lorry bearing No.AP 09 Y 2464 which has got fitness certificate validity till 23.09.2011 and all over India permitted till 13.09.2015 the said vehicle was insured with Opposite Party for the period covering from 10.09.2011 to 09.09.2012. The complainant engaged the vehicle for transportation of the goods. The said lorry on its journey from Ahmedabad to Hyderabad with load met with an accident on 24.07.2011about 3-30 a.m., near Kapurai Chokdi on Baroda, Mumbai National High Way No.8. The accident was immediately informed to the Opposite Party as insurer. The Police Makarpura Police Station registered a case in crime No.1171 of 2011 conducted panchanama and other investigation. During the course of investigation driver by name Dhulappa was arrested and later was released on bail.
2. Soon after the receipt of intimation of the accident the Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle and asses the loss. On the instructions of Opposite Party and the Surveyor appointed by it, the complainant shifted the damaged vehicle to the workshop M/s. Modern Mechanical Work, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. The Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party inspected and on his instructions the complainant got repaired vehicle and incurred expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/-. The surveyor orally informed the complainant that allowable claim will be about Rs.2,00,000/- and Company will settled it. But, instead of settling the claim the Opposite Party repudiated it and intimated to the complainant on 06.02.2013. Thereupon the complainant requested higher authorities of Opposite Party to reconsider the issue and settle the claim. In response to it a letter was addressed to the complainant on 19.02.2013 stating that claim was repudiated for the reason that, the vehicle was driven by one Mr. Akash Second driver of the vehicle and was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident.
3. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim basing on the statement of 3rd parties. As per the factual things and the records of the Police at the time of accident the vehicle was driving by Sri Dhulappa, having effective and valid driven license to drive it. The Opposite Party inorder to avoid the payment arising out of the claim falsely saying that the vehicle was driven by Akash who did not possess a valid driving license to drive it and is not only illegal but also unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party by it’s action has caused immense mental tension and huge financial loss to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for it. Hence this complaint.
4. The Opposite Party filed its written version admitting issuance of the policy to the complainant vehicle and that, the policy was inforce at the time of accident but by denied the rest of the complainant’s version. The substance of the contest of Opposite Party is as per panchanama report of the Police concerned under whose jurisdiction an accident occurred involving the complainant’s vehicle, one Mr. Akash was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The said panchanama was conducted immediately after the accident. As per the complaint given by Mr. Anand Ramrupa Yadav soon after the accident the vehicle was being driven by Mr.Akash but not Sri Dhulappa. The spot survey report of Sri Manish Sharma, appointed by the Company, the driver of the vehicle was Akash, but not Dhulappa as claimed by the complainant. The accident involving the complainant’s vehicle took place within the jurisdiction of Manikarpura Police who registered the claim No.1171/2011 and conducted Panchanama and the said panchanama was in the presence of Mr. Anand Ramrupa Yadav according to at the time of it accident one Mr. Akash was driving the vehicle but not Dhulappa. Soon after receipt of intimation of the accident the Opposite Party appointed Mr. Manish Sharma a licensed Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor for inspection of the damaged vehicle and asses the loss. The said Mani Sharma submitted the report stating that one Mr. Akash was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he was not holding a valid driving license. The Panchanama conducted by Police concerned immediately after the accident also confirmed the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was Akash. But the complainant managed the things subsequently in filing the charge sheet against Mr. Dhulappa.
The claim of the complainant that she spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards repair charges and she was orally informed by surveyor that allowable claim would be Rs.2,00,000/- is false. The loss was assessed by Mr.Akash Insurance Surveyor was for a sum of Rs.1,78,024-20 ps., only after depreciation and salvage for replacement of new parts as per terms and conditions of policy. The complainant exaggerated the amount spent for repair inorder to get huge compensation. Since, Mr.Akash was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license, it amounts to violation of policy conditions. Hence, the claim was repudiated and it is legally valid. There was no deficiency of service by the Opposite Party and the complainant is not entitled for any of the claim made in the complaint.
In the enquiry stage complainant’s G.P.A. holder filed his evidence affidavit and substance of it is reiteration of complaint he also got exhibited 10 documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence of it’s Manager at Hyderabad Branch was filed and got exhibited 5 documents.
Both sides have filed the written arguments and supplemented the same with oral submissions.
On consideration of material on the record the following points have fallen for consideration.
- Whether repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party is justified and the complainant is entitled for amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: Only undisputed fact in the present complaint is complainant’s lorry got insured with the Opposite Party insured and the Policy was in subsistence as on the date when the said lorry was met with an accident. Soon after the accident the complainant intimated the same to Opposite Party as insurer of the vehicle and soon after receipt of said intimation of the accident the Opposite Party got appointed a licensed surveyor to inspect the subject vehicle and asses the loss and basing on the report of said surveyor and other record Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the ground that the person on the driving seat at the time of accident was not holding an effective and valid driving license and complainant by entrusting the vehicle to a person who doesn’t possess valid and effective driving license, violated the terms and conditions of the policy as such the company is not liable to indemnify the loss sustained by the complainant on account of involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The complainant version that vehicle was being driven by driver at the time of accident but not Akash and said driver was holding a valid and effective driving license and there was no violation of policy conditions are all false. What is to be considered by this Forum is whether the Akash was driving the vehicle at the time of impact or not.
The complainant version is one Mr. Dhulappa was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and to support it she has filed Ex.a7 and A8 documents. Ex.A7 stated to be the English translation of a letter to Superintendent of Central Jail to release the accused Dubchhaya son of Gundappa Kolar-A close look of this Ex.A7 English translation copy shows the name of accused as Dubchhaya scored out with a pencil and written with the Dulappa. By this letter Superintendent of Central Jail, Vadodara was asked to release the said person if he is not involved to any other crime. The crime number in which the said person was arrested is 171/2011. This letter stated to have been addressed by Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. There is another letter stated to have been given by Dhulappa to Makarpura Police station reference Crime No.171/2011. It appears to be a bond given by Dhulappa undertaking to attend the trail after release on bail after filing of the charge sheet. In the light on these two documents the complainant is stating that Mr.Dhulappa was driving the subject vehicle at the time of accident. The said letter obviously was filed after the filing of the charge sheet and grant of bail to him. The subject vehicle was involved in the accident on intervening night of 24/64. There is a complaint by one Mr. Anand Krupa Yadav to the Police and it is dated 24.07.2011. A reading of this complaint shows that, the said Anand Krupa Yadav personally went to the Police Station and stated that he is a transport driver with license No.7428 of Bihar, Chawkdi District and the driver vehicle No.GJ 5 V 9611 which was a Tiller loaded with iron plates at Surat Hajira and was driving the said tiller vehicle on Vadodara National High way No.8. At railway bridge of the road because of the slope the vehicle was going down and suddenly failed which made him to stop it in the night at about 3-00 A.M. in the night hours a lorry No. AP TY 2464 came at high speed with careless driving and hit his vehicle and it resulted in an accident and he sustained injury to his right leg and foot. It is further stated by him that the driver of the lorry AP 9 Y 2464 also sustained injury to his left leg and he told his name as Akash Manik native of village Shirshi of BHAGDAL District in Karnataka State. Soon after the accident 108 vehicle came and both himself and driver of the lorry No. AP 9 Y 2464 were shifted to Amdavad S.S.G.H. of treatment. Admittedly the lorry bearing No. AP 9 Y 2464 is belongs to the complainant. The complaint was lodged by Mr. Anand Krupa Yadav soon after the accident with the Police concerned. So in the first report to police the name of the lorry driver mentioned is Akash Manik. There is a Panchanama conducted by Police concerned on the spot of the accident in the presence of witnesses and as per this panchanama the pace of impact was shows by Akash Manik and explained as to how accident was occurred. This panchanama contains the details of the damaged part of the vehicle.,This panchanama also reveals Akash Manik drove the complainant’s vehicle at the time of accident. As per the spot survey report also Mr.Akash was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident. It is further revealed from the spot inspection report that, the said Akash sustained injury to the left leg and Mr.Dhulappa is a witness to the accident. At the time of spot panchanama statement Akash was recorded and it also confirm that, he was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident. The first statement of Mr. Anand Ramakrupa Yadav who sustained injury. The Panchanama conducted by the Police and these spot survey report by the licensed Surveyor proves that Mr.Aksh who does not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the complainant’s insured vehicle was driving it. As rightly pleaded by the Opposite Party, as an after thought a second statement was secured from Mr.Anand Ramakrupa Yadav stating that Dhulappa was driver of the complainant’s vehicle at the time of accident and basing on it, it appears a charge sheet was filed against Dhulappa who stated to have obtained a bail in the crime. There are all staged managed affairs in order to get amount from the Insurance Company as there is a Policy coverage for the vehicle. The complainant conveniently has not got filed the certified copies of the FIR and charge sheet which would have revealed as to how the charge sheet was filed against Dhulappa, though the earliest statement of Mr.Anand Ramakrupa Yadav shows Mr.Akash was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
The repudiation of claim by the Opposite Party is basing on the earliest statement of Mr.Anand Ramakrupa Yadav, panchanama conducted by Police before filing of the charge sheet and spot survey report of licensed Surveyor who conducted the survey on the same date of accident. Hence, Opposite Party justified in repudiating claim. Accordingly point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.2: Since, repudiation of claim by opposite party is basing on the factual aspects there is no deficiency of service on the part of it. Hence, the complaint is not entitled for any of the claims.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs.
Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 7th day of August, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Sri Abdul Kadar Patel, Sri K.V. Rama Rao,
GPA Holder of the complainant. Dy. Manager of the National
Insurance Company
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Exhibit: A-1 is a copy of Certificate of Registration form, dt.04.10.2005.
Exhibit: A-2 is a copy of Permission from 14.09.2010 to 13.09.2015.
Exhibit: A-3 is a copy of Permission from 14.09.2010 to 13.09.2011.
Exhibit: A-4 is a copy of Vehicle fitness certificate expiry by 23.09.2011.
Exhibit: A-5 is a copy of Driving license from 01.12.2009 to 30.09.2029.
Exhibit: A-6 is a copy of Insurance policy from 10.09.2011 to 09.09.2012.
Exhibit: A-7 is a copy of Criminal record English translation with Gurajithi copies.
Exhibit: A-8 is a copy of bunch of repair bills.
Exhibit: A-9 is a copy of Repudiation letter issued by O.P., dt.19.02.2013.
Exhibit: A-10 is a copy of Special Power of Attorney, dt.02.06.2014.
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
Exhibit: B-1 is a copy of the Policy with terms and conditions.
Exhibit: B-2 is a copy of Panchanama report.
Exhibit: B-3 is a copy of Survey report, dt.26.07.2011
Exhibit: B-4 is a copy of Witness Statement of Opposite vehicle driver Mr.Anand Rama Krupa Yadav English translation.
Exhibit: B-5 is a copy of Driving licence dopy of original driver Mr.Akash.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
kps
