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

Wednesday the 28^th day of April , 2010

C.C.No. 03/09

Between:

S.Narasimha, S/o. S.Kistanna,

H.No. 8-6, Mangala Street, B.Thandrapadu Village,Kurnool District-518002.                      

 …Complainant

-Vs-

New India Assurance Company Ltd.,Represented by its Divisional Manager,

40/526-12, R.S. Road, Kurnool-518001.                                       

…Opposite Party

        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence  of  Sri. P.Siva Sudharshan , Advocate, for complainant ,  and Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramiah, President)

C.C. No.03/09

1.       This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying

a)       to pay  Rs.27,965/- with interest  at 12% p.a  to the complainant  from the date of accident to date of realization ,

b)       to grant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony,

c)       to grant a  sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint and

d)       to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant insured his vehicle (trally auto) bearing No. AP 21 X 3766 with the opposite party.  Opposite  party issued  a  policy. The  policy  was  in inforce  from  25-05-2006 to 24-05-2007 . On 16-11-2006 the vehicle of the complainant  met with an accident near Nandyal check post , Kurnool .  In the said accident the vehicle of the complainant is damaged . The complainant informed the same to opposite party. The opposite party appointed a surveyor . The complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents to the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 15-12-2006  stating  that  C. Lakshmana Swamy the driver of the  vehicle was possessing  LMV (non transport)  driving license  at the time of accident and that he is not authorized to drive the vehicle of the  complainant which is a transport goods vehicle . Hence the complaint.

3 .       The opposite party filed written version stating that the compliant is not maintainable . It is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the auto bearing registration No. AP 21 X 3766 and it was insured with opposite party. The policy was inforce on 16-11-2006 . The policy covers  the risk of the vehicle for Rs.2,35,414/- . It is admitted that on 16-11-2006 the complainants vehicle met with an accident  near Nandyal check post , Kurnool. It is also  admitted that  Narendra Kishore was appointed  to estimate  the actual  loss .He assessed the actual loss  at Rs. 13,600/- and submitted his report  on 05-12-2006  . The driver  of the vehicle had no valid  and effective driving license  to drive the vehicle of the complainant .  The driver was holding  LMV (non transport)driving license at the time of the accident. The vehicle  involved in accident was registered as “Goods Carrying LMV”  which is a  transport  vehicle. The complainant  violated the policy  terms and handed over the  vehicle to  a  driver who had no  valid  driving license. Therefore the  claim  of the complainant was repudiated  by the opposite party . There was no deficiency of service  on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

4.       On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 is marked  . On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B8 are marked.

5.       On the basis of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are    

(i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the

respondents/ opposite parties ?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed

for?

(iii) To what relief?

Both parties filed written arguments.

6.       Point No.1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the auto trally bearing No.AP 21 X 3766  . It was insured with the opposite party . The opposite party   issued a policy infavour of the complainant  and the said policy was inforce from 25-05-2006  to 24-05-2007 . The vehicle  of the complainant met with an accident  on 16-11-2006 near Nandyal check post , Kurnool and  that the complainant  informed about the  accident  to the opposite party is not under dispute. Admittedly the opposite party appointed  P.Narendra Kishore , surveyor  to estimate the actual loss  suffered  by the complainant . The surveyor  assessed the loss  at Rs.13,600/- .

7.       The driver of the complainant was not having effective driving license to drive  the vehicle of the complainant  which is a LMV non transport vehicle. The complainant  violated the terms and conditions  of the policy. Therefore  the complaint is not entitled  to any compensation. Ex.B6 is the surveyor  report of P.Narendra Kishore  surveyor according to him the net loss sustained by the complainant was Rs.13,600/-.

8.       It is the case of the opposite party  that the  complainant who is the owner of the  auto bearing No. AP 21 X 3766  violated  the terms  and conditions  of the policy and that  the opposite party   is not liable  to pay any compensation . As seen  from Ex.B1 insurance policy it is very clear  that the auto  of the complainant  is a commercial vehicle. It is a  transport vehicle  as defined  in the MV Act. According to the opposite party  the    driver of  the  vehicle at  the  time of  the  accident  was one C. Lakshmana Swamy and that  the said  Lakshmana Swamy was not holding LMV transport  driving license at the time of the accident .    The  opposite  party  filed Ex.B7  driving license  of  C. Lakshmana Swamy who was the  driver of the accident vehicle . According  to Ex .B7  the driver got LMV non transport  driving license and    the said   license  was  inforce    from    18-10-2001  to 17-10-2021. It is not the contention  of the complainant  that the driver got LMV transport driving license  at the time  of the accident. The complainant did not place any documentary evidence to show  that Lakshmana Swamy driver of the auto had LMV transport driving license on the date of the  accident.  The complainant  is no other than  the owner of the  damaged vehicle bearing No. AP 21 X  3766.

9.       The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has relied on the decisions reported in 2000 ACJ 319, 2006 ACJ 2742                                     in support  of its contention. They have no bearing on the  point and they are not applicable to the case on hand.  

10.      In the present case  on hand the driver was possessing only LMV non transport driving license  at the time of the accident. He  had no driving license  ply the auto of the complainant  which was a LMV transport vehicle. The complainant knowing fully that Lakshmana Swamy had no valid driving license  entrusted his vehicle which is a LMV transport  vehicle.  Therefore the opposite party  rightly  repudiated the  claim of the complainant.  There was  a damage to the vehicle of the complainant  in the accident  that took place on 16-11-2006 . There was no deficiency of service on the part of the  opposite party  and the complainant is not entitled  any compensation . The complaint  is dismissed.

11.      In the result the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 28^th day of April, 2010.

     Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:

      Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

 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