COMPLAINT FILED:27.02.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 26th AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.497/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. H.A.Jayaramiah,<br /> S/o Aluriah,<br /> Major,<br /> Prop: M/s Sri Ganesh Agency,<br /> No.14, 1st Main Road,<br /> I.T.I. Layout,<br /> Mallathahalli,<br /> Magadi Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 091.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri Viswanath <br /> Sabarad<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,<br /> The New India Assurance<br /> Co. Ltd.,<br /> No.327/5, Mysore Road,<br /> Kengeri,<br /> Bangalore – 560 039.<br /> <br /> Advocate Sri V.Subramani <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settled the insurance claim for Rs.4,00,000/- and pay the interest and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle No.KA-02 C-7112. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was in force from 10.06.2006 to 09.06.2007. The said vehicle met with an accident on 04.08.2006. At the time of accident one Nagaraju was the driver, he possessed the valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Complainant filed the complaint to the jurisdictional police and the case is registered. Then with an intention to leave the said vehicle for repairs which suffered extensive damages took the estimation from Bangalore Mopeds Sales and Services. Intimated the OP about the accident and the damages caused to the vehicle. The surveyor of the OP examined the vehicle and gave the survey report assessing the total loss and damages. With all that, even after the lapse of one year, the claim is not settled. On repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP ultimately repudiated the claim on 12.09.2008. Which is unjust and improper and without due application of the mind. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the vehicle owned by the complainant is a Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV). Having laden weight of 10500 kgs. The so called driver Nagaraju had the driving licence to drive only LMV not MGV. There is a violation of the policy conditions. OP is justified in repudiating the said claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative.<br /> Point No.2:- Negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle KA-02 C-7112 and the OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was in force from 10.06.2006 to 09.06.2007. It is the case of the complainant that said vehicle met an accident on 04.08.2006 and a complaint was lodged to the jurisdictional police. FIR copy is produced. According to the complaint one Nagaraju was the driver of the said vehicle at the time of the said accident and he possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the complainant that after the accident he intimated the OP about the damages caused to the vehicle. The surveyor of the OP examined the vehicle and assessed the loss and damages and gave his report. Complainant with a fond hope to get his vehicle repaired obtained the estimation from Bangalore Mopeds Sales and Services. Documents to that effect are produced. It is further alleged that even after the lapse of more than one year, OP failed to settled the said claim. On the other hand repudiated the claim on 12.09.2008, letter of repudiation is produced. According to complainant the said repudiation is unjust and improper.<br /> <br /> 10. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the driver of the complainant Mr. Nagaraju possessed the driving licence to drive only LMV (N/T). Valid from 01.09.2003 to 31.08.2023 and does not possess valid licence to drive the MGV with a laden weight of 10500 kgs. The present vehicle in question belonging to the complainant which is the subject matter of accident is an MGV. Further OP says that the same driver was permitted to drive the transport vehicle not exceeding GVW of 7500 kgs with effect from 12.02.2004 to 11.02.2007. Further OP says that the said driver was permitted to drive HTV with effect from 04.11.2006 to 12.02.2007. But the vehicle in question met with an accident on 04.08.2006. That means to say as on the date of accident on the face of it, apparently the driver Nagaraju did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. We have gone through the driving licence of the said driver. <br /> <br /> 11. In view of the above said discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant has committed a breach of the conditions of the policy covered and issued by the OP. He permitted a person to drive his vehicle who did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive such kind of vehicle MGV. OP after due consideration of the facts and circumstances and on application of mind and by going through driving licence of Nagaraju rejected the claim. In our view repudiation of the claim appears to be just and proper. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to uphold the repudiation. When that is so complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Complaint is devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br />