BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 1St day of February , 2011
C.C.No 65/10
Between:
J.Ravi Kumar, S/o Pedda Veera Swamy,
R/o Plot No.8, S.B.I Officers Colony, Sunkesula Road, Kurnool - 518 004.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep.By its Branch Manager,
D.No.40-344, Tula Complex, Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool - 518 001.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by Its Divisional Manager,
D.No.11-169, 1st Floor, Subash Road, Anantapur - 515 001.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. L. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, for complainant, and for opposite party No.1 is set exparte and Sri D. A. Anees Ahamed, Advocate for opposite party No.2 upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 65/10
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite parties:-
(a) To pay an amount of RS. 1,27,700/- towards the damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant with interest at 18% from the date of accident and costs,
- To award compensation of RS.20,000/- for causing inconvenience and mental agony due to deficiency conduct of opposite party.
- And to pass such other relief, as the honorable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the tanker lorry bearing No. AP 21T-3978. It was insured with OP.No.1 under policy No. 551001/3106/01507. The policy was in force from 31-10-2006 to 20-10-2007. On 22-09-2007 at about 5-30 A.M. the vehicle of the complainant was proceeding to Ramagundam from Kurnool. The vehicle was transporting acid at that time when the vehicle of the complainant reached Mulugu F.R.C. another vehicle came in opposite direction and dashed against the tanker of the complainant. As a result the driver of the tanker of the complainant lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle went and hit the road side tree. As a result, the tanker of the complainant was badly damaged. After the accident, the complainant submitted for claim. A surveyor was appointed to inspect the damaged vehicle. The surveyor submitted his report. The opposite party has repudiated the claim through its letter dated 17-03-2009 on the ground that the driver of the complainant was not holding effective driving license at the time of the accident and that the driving license of the driver expired before the date of accident. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite Party No. 1 set exparte and opposite party No.2 filed written version, stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The claim was repudiated as the driver had no effective driving license at the time of accident. The driving license of the driver of the complainant expired before the date of accident. There is violation of policy conditions and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The surveyor assessed the claim for RS.66,500/-. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant, Ex.A1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties, Ex. B1 to B10 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite party No. 2 and J.S.V. Kameswara Rao are filed. R.W.1 is also examined and Ex.X1is marked.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2 :- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the tanker bearing No. AP 21 T-3978 and it was insured with the opposite parties under Ex.B1 policy. The policy was in force from 31-10-2006 to 30-10-2007. The fact that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged on 22-09-2007 due to the accident is also not under dispute. It is the case of the complainant that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the opposite coming vehicle and that the driver of the complaint was not at fault. The Ex.B2 is the claim form where in it is mentioned that the accident took place due to the hit of opposite coming vehicle. In Ex.B3 surveyor report also, it is mentioned that the vehicle coming in opposite direction hit the vehicle of the complainant that due to the said hit the driver lost control and hit a tree. From the recital in Ex.B2 and B3 it is very clear that the driver of the complainant was not at fault and that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the vehicle coming in opposite direction.
8. Admittedly after the accident, the complainant submitted claim to the opposite parties and it was repudiated on 17-03-2009, stating that the driver of the complainant was not having effective driving license at the time of the accident and that the complainant violated the conditions of the policy. In Ex.B1 policy it is mentioned that the driver of the complainant must hold effective driving license at the time of the accident. Admittedly at the time of accident the tanker of the complainant was carrying acid. One must have hazardous driving license to drive the vehicle of the complainant. To show that the driver of the complainant was not having hazardous driving license by the date of the accident, the opposite parties got examined R.W.1. It is stated by R.W.1, who is working as Jr. Assistant in R.T.O. Office that the driver of the complainant by name M. Narendar was issued hazardous driving license on 13-07-2005, that the said license was valid up to 12-07-2006 and that he did not renew his license subsequently. Ex.X1 is the copy of the driving license of M.Narendar. As seen from Ex.X1 it is, very clear that M. Narendar, the driver of the complainant was not having hazardous driving license by the date of accident i.e., 22-09-2007. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant when the accident took place due to negligent driving of the opposite coming vehicle and when there was no negligence in driving the vehicle of the complainant by its driver, the opposite parties cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant. In support of his contention, he relied on the conditions repudiate in 2005 (3) CPR 184 where in the Madhya Pradesh State Commission held that where driver of vehicle was not holding driving license at the time of accident and accident was entirely due to negligence of other vehicle, insurance company could not repudiate claim in respect of damage to vehicle on the ground that driver was not holding valid driving license.
9. In the present case also the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of opposite coming vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that the driver of the complainant contributed negligence for the accident. Therefore the opposite parties cannot escape their liability on the ground that the driver of the complainant had no valid driving license at the time of the accident. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties is not justified. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. The complainant filed the complaint claiming damages of Rs.1,27,700/-. The complainant did not place any material to show that he sustained damage of RS. 1,27,700/-. On the other hand the opposite parties filed Ex.B3 survey report dated 16-08-2008. Admittedly after the accident surveyor was appointed and he filed Ex.B3. The surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.66,500/-. The report of the surveyor must be given due weight by both parties. The complainant is entitled to the damages of Rs.66,500/- as assessed by the surveyor.
11. In the result the complainant is partly allowed directing opposite parties jointly and severally to pay damages of RS. 66,500/- to the complainant with interest at 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e., 17-03-2009 till the date of payment along with cost of RS.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1st day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : R.W.1
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Repudiation letter dt.17-03-2009 sent by the OP1 to the complainant.
Ex.X1 Driving license No. DLR AP022163702009 of
M.Narender.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 photo copy of policy No.5510001/31/06/6300001507 along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2. Photo copy of claim form dt.03-10-2007.
Ex.B3 Survey report dt.16-08-2008 along with photo graphs.
Ex.B4 D.L.Extract of M. Narendar Driver of Truck dt.23-10-2007.
Ex.B5 Letter dt.31-07-2008 by OP1 to complainant.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of Letter dt.03-08-2008 by the complainant to OP1.
Ex.B7 Photo copy of Letter dt.03-07-2008 by surveyor to OP1.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of Letter dt.29-10-2008 by OP1 to complainant.
Ex.B9 Photo copy of Letter dt.17-03-2009 by OP1 to Complainant.
Ex.B10 Photo copy or Registration Certificate bearing No.AP21P3978.
R.W.1 Deposition of R.W-1 (Md.Khaja) dt.25-11-2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
