Date of Filing : 23.01.2012

  Date of Order : 23.04.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 23^rd APRIL 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB.                    ……..     MEMBER

CC No. 08 / 2012

Sri. Manjunath.K.R.

S/o. K.M. Ramaiah,

Aged about 39 years,

R/o. Kutandhalli Village,

Tayavanahalli Post,

Kolar Taluk.

(By Smt. M.V. Rathnamma, Adv.)                          ……. Complainant

V/s.

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

No. 28, 5^th Floor,

East Wing Centenary Building, M.G. Road,

Bangalore – 560 001.

(By Sri. B. Kumar, Adv.)                                        …… Opposite Party

ORDER

By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complaint made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay to the Complainant Rs.90,000/- are necessary:

Complainant has insured his vehicle Maruti ALTO bearing Regn. No. KA-08/M-611 with the OP in Policy No. 2111143513 and insurance was valid.  On 13.08.2011 the said Car met with an accident, as a result, damages caused to the vehicle.  The case was registered in NCR No. 230/2011 before the jurisdictional police.  The damage is more than Rs.90,000/-.  It was suggested that it may be taken as total loss.  Amount was not received.  Notices were exchanged.  Claim was not settled.  Hence, the Complaint. 

2.       In brief the version of Ops are:-

Insurance of the vehicle and its validity are admitted.  The vehicle was driven by the person who had no valid Driving Licence (DL).  Accordingly, rightly repudiated the claim.  There is no deficiency in service.   Hence, Complaint be dismissed.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, both parties have filed Memos stating their pleadings & documents be read as their evidence.  OP has filed written arguments.  Arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:

POINTS

          (A)     Whether there is deficiency in service ?

          (B)     What order ?

5.       Our findings are:

          (A)     Negative

          (B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the Memos & documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has insured his Maruthi ALTO Car bearing Regn. No. KA-08/M-611 with OP in Policy No. 2111143513 and it was valid between 15.07.2011 & 14.07.2012.  The I.D. value of the vehicle is Rs.90,000/- and it is a 2004 Model Car.

7.       It is also an admitted fact that on 13.08.2011 the said vehicle was driven by the Complainant and it met with an accident, as a result, the vehicle sustained certain damages.  It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant is having Driving Licence No. 41/05 issued by the registering Authority RTO, Kolar to drive only Motor Cycle with Gear and not for any other vehicles.  That means the said complainant/driver who drove the Car had no valid DL to drive LMV Car in question.  Hence, the claim was repudiated rightly. 

8.       OP had written to the Complainant that subject to the terms & conditions of the policy salvage value may be given on 07.09.2011 & 19.09.2011, but it was not given.  Hence the file was closed on 05.10.2011 stating that condition of the policy is violated.  Here the Complainant/driver who was driving the vehicle at the time accident had no DL to drive LMV.  He had DL only to drive Motor Cycle with gear.  Hence it is not valid DL. 

9.       In case between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v/s. Zaharulnisha in 2008 ACJ 1928 which has been held thus:-

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 149 (2) and 10 (2) - Motor accident causing death - By two wheeler scooter - Driver of the offending vehicle not holding valid licence - Claim for compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as High Court awarding compensation - Direction to insurance Company to satisfy the award - On appeal, held: The driving of vehicle without a valid licence was in violation of s. 10 (2) - Hence Insurance Company not liable to pay the compensation - However, Insurance Company directed to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

This in all force applies to the facts & circumstances of this case.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service.  Merely the driver had DL to drive 2 Wheeler, it does not mean that he has capacity or competent to drive 4 Wheeler or Licence with respect to 2 Wheeler has to be considered as Licence with respect to 4 Wheelers.  Such thing is not permissible in Law. 

10.     Here Complainant himself is the owner of the vehicle and hence paying by the OP and recovering from the complainant does not arise at all.  Hence, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:

ORDER

1.       Complaint is dismissed.

2.       Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.

3.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of April 2012)

T. NAGARAJA            K.G.SHANTALA          H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS