BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President And Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member And Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member Monday the 17th day of September, 2012 C.C.No.30/2012 Between: K.Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o K.Sanjeeva Reddy, R/o H.No.4-33-6, Kusupati Nagar,Near Balaji Nagar,Kurnool Town and District. …Complainant -Vs- National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, D.No.40-344/A, 1st Floor,Tula Complex,Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool – 518 001. ...Opposite ParTy . This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.P.Sunkanna, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President) C.C. No.30/2012 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:- (a) To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3,25,000/- towards damages caused to the Car bearing No.AP21 TV 508 of complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of damage caused in a road accident; (b) To award compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite party; (c) To award costs of Rs.5,000/-; And (d) To pass such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the Car bearing No.AP21 TV 508 and it was insured with opposite party under policy No.551001/31/09/6300002285. The policy was valid from 06-11-2009 to 05-11-2010. On 25-08-2010 in the early morning when the driver by name S.Khaza alone was proceeding to Nandikotkur from Kurnool by driving the said vehicle to get the amount from the relative of the complainant, at about 4.30 A.M., one R.T.C. Bus came from opposite side on wrong side of the road in a rash and negligent manner. When the driver of the vehicle of the complainant turned his vehicle to extreme left side to avoid the accident, the vehicle of the complainant skid on the road and fell in to the ditch. As a result the vehicle of the complainant was completely damaged. The driver S.Khaza was fortunately escaped without any receiving any injury. The driver gave a report to the SHO of Brahmanakotkur P.S. The SHO gave a certificate to the said effect on 25-08-2010. The complainant submitted the claim from along with relevant documents to opposite party with a request to settle the claim. The opposite party appointed a surveyor. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss caused to the vehicle. The complainant could not give reply to the letter dated 08-12-2010 and 11-01-2011 addressed to her by the opposite party. On 30-01-2012 the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party praying to settle the claim. The opposite party having received the said legal notice gave a reply notice dated 17-02-2012 justifying the repudiation of the claim. At the time of the accident the car was not being used for commercial purpose. LMV non transport driving License is enough to drive empty car. It does not amount to violation of any terms and conditions of the policy. The repudiated of the claim by the complainant is untenable. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint. 3. Opposite party filed written version admitting that the complainant is the owner of the car bearing No.AP21 TV 508 and it was insured with the opposite party. The policy was valid from 06-11-2009 to 05-11-2010. The opposite party is not aware of the fact that on 25-08-2010 the drive S.Khaza was proceeding to Nandikotkur from Kurnool by driving the said vehicle to get the amount from the relative of the complainant, and that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in the accident. It appears that the complainant concocted story for the purpose of claiming damages against the opposite party. It is not known as to how the S.H.O. Brahmanakotkur had issued the certificate. After intimation by the complainant about the accident a surveyor was sent to conduct spot survey. After scrutinizing the documents it came to light that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving license at the time of the alleged accident. He possessed LMV (Non Transport) driving license. The vehicle was a transport vehicle. There was a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The said fact was brought to the notice of the complainant through registered letters dated 08-12-2010 and 11-01-2011. The complainant kept quiet for a long time and surprisingly got issued legal notice on 30-01-2012. The opposite party gave immediate reply. The claim was repudiated as there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B6 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed. 5. Both sides filed written arguments. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the Car bearing No.AP21 TV 508 and it was insured with opposite party under original of Ex.B3 Policy bearing No.551001/31/09/6300002285. The said policy was in force from 06-11-2009 to 05-11-2010. It is the case of the complainant that on 25-08-2010 when the driver S.Khaza was proceeding to Nandikotkur from Kurnool by driving the said vehicle at about 4.30 A.M., one R.T.C. Bus came from opposite side on the wrong side of the road. The driver of the car to avoid the accident turned the vehicle to extreme left side, that the car fell into ditch and was completely damaged. The complainant in her sworn affidavit stated that her vehicle was damaged in the accident that took place on 25-08-2010. The complainant also filed Ex.A1 Certificate dated 25-08-2010 issued by SHO Brahmanakotkur P.S. In Ex.A1 Certificate it is stated that S.Khaza came to Police Station on 25-08-2010 and informed about the damage of the vehicle. Admittedly on the intimation given by the complainant the opposite party appointed a spot surveyor and he filed interim report Ex.B5. Ex.B6 is the final report of the surveyor. In the final report it is mentioned that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident when it was proceeding and extensive damage was caused to the said vehicle. Admittedly the opposite party sent Ex.A2 letter dated 11-01-2011 to the complainant. In the said letter there is no mention that the vehicle of the complainant was not damaged in an accident on 25-08-2010. For the first time the opposite party in its written version denied the accident. The photos attached to Ex.B6 final report of the surveyor go to show that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. From the evidence available on record it is very clear that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged in an accident. 8. It is the case of the opposite party that the vehicle of the complainant was a transport vehicle, that S.Khaza driver of the said vehicle was holding LMV (Non Transport Driving License), that there was no endorsement on the driving license of the S.Khaza, that he could drive the transport vehicle and that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Admittedly the vehicle of the complainant was a transport vehicle. S.Khaza was holding LMV (Non Transport Driving License). It is not the case of the complainant that there is endorsement on the LMV driving license of the S.Khaza that he can drive LMV (Transport Vehicle). The complainant did not choose to produce the copy of the Driving License of S.Khaza. The complainant did not take steps to examine Road Transport Authority to establish that the driver had LMV (Transport Driving License). 9. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that on 25-08-2010 the driver S.Khaza was driving the vehicle to go to Nandikotkur from Kurnool to bring money from relative of the complainant, that the vehicle was not under use for commercial purpose at the time of the accident and that LMV non transport driving license is sufficient to drive the said car. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in 2000 ACJ 319 (Supreme Court). In the said decision the Apex Court held that “the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle as the vehicle was weighing less than 6,000 Kg. and not carrying any goods at the time of accident though the vehicle was designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods carrier”. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that the vehicle of the complainant was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, that the driver of complainant was holding license to drive light motor vehicle, that there was no endorsement on the driving license of the driver of the complainant that he could drive the transport vehicle and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay damages to the complainant. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC). In the said decision it is clearly held that “the driver holding license to drive light motor vehicle, not entitled to drive passenger carrying commercial vehicle unless there is endorsement as required under section 3, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”. The decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is also discussed by the Apex Court in the later decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. The vehicle involved in the accident in the case reported in 2000 ACJ 319 (Supreme Court) was a LMV goods carriage truck. At the time of the accident it was not carrying any goods though the vehicle was designed to be used as a transport vehicle. There was neither pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by Transport Authority. In the said circumstance it was held that the vehicle in question would remain a Light Motor Vehicle. Further Ashok Gangadhar case did not lay down that the driver holding license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle 11. In the present case admittedly the vehicle involved in the accident is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The driver S.Khaza was holding driving license to ply light Motor Vehicle (LMV). It is not the case of the complainant that there is an endorsement on the driving license of the S.Khaza that he can drive the transport vehicle. The facts of the present case on hand are entirely different from the facts of the case cited in 2000 ACJ 319. In the decision cited by the opposite party reported in I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) it is clearly held that “the driver who was holding license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) could not have plied passenger carrying commercial vehicle”. In the instance case also the vehicle involved in the accident is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle (Transport Vehicle). The driver S.Khaza was holding license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). He could not have plied the vehicle of the complainant which was a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. In the light of the findings of Apex Court in the decision reported in I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) who have no hesitation to hold that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and that the opposite party need not pay any amount towards damages to the complainant. The opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. No deficiency of service is found on the opposite party. 12. 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 17th day of September, 2012. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainant : Nill For the opposite party : Nill List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- Ex.A1 Photo copy of Certificate given by the Brahmankotkur dated 25-08-2010. Ex.A2 Photo copy of Letter dated 11-01-2011 under Ref.No.551001:Mot-Claims-238-2010 addressed to complainant by the opposite party. Ex.A3 Photo copy of Letter dated 11-01-2011 under Ref.No.551001:Mot-Claims-238-2010/4490 addressed to complainant by the opposite party. Ex.A4 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 30-01-2012. Ex.A5 Reply Notice dated 17-02-2012. List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Ex.B1 Photo copy of Letter dated 11-01-2011 under Ref.No.551001:Mot-Claims-238-2010/4490 addressed to complainant by the opposite party. Ex.B2 Photo copy of Reply Notice dated 17-02-2012. Ex.B3 True copy of Policy bearing No.551001/31/09/6300002285 along with conditions. Ex.B4 True copy of Motor Survey Report (Final) dated 06-08-2010. Ex.B5 Photo copy of Interim Report of the Surveyor to opposite party dated 30-11-2010. Ex.B6 Photo copy of Final Report of the Surveyor to opposite part dated 21-02-2011 along with Xerox photos. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY 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 : | 
