COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 21st FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2829/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. T.M. Kumar,<br /> S/o. Muniswamy,<br /> Aged 46 years,<br /> No. 52, First Model <br /> House Street,<br /> Near NR Colony Bus Stop,<br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> Advocate (G.V. Dayananda)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> By its Managing Director,<br /> East Wing, 5th Floor, 28,<br /> Centenary Building,<br /> M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Ravi. S. Samprathi)<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 settle the insurance claim for Rs.4,16,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-05-D-9882. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle which was valid from 10.11.2006 to 09.11.2007. The said luxury taxi met with a road traffic accident on 29.09.2007 at about 10.20 p.m. near Alisandra Village. A complaint was lodged to the Bellur Police Station. In the said accident severe damages were caused to the said vehicle. Complainant informed the OP about the said accident. The surveyor of the OP examined and inspected the said vehicle at Sri Sai Colourium Garage. Complainant made the claim by producing all the relevant documents like F.I.R copy, R.C., T.C., D.L., insurance, OP failed to settle the claim. Complainant was made to move from pillar to post for more than 30 times. Complainant earning his bread and livelihood by running the said luxury taxi. For want of repairs it is parked in the garage, thereby complainant suffered both monetary loss and mental agony. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that as on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle Krishna did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. The said driver Krishna possessed licence to drive only Auto rickshaw. Hence there is a breach committed by the complainant himself in allowing the person to drive the said vehicle, who did not possess the valid and effective driving licence. When there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy OP after due application of mind repudiated the claim on 06.12.2007. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. 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 /> 4. 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 /> 5. 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:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-05-D-9882. OP covered the insurance of the vehicle which was valid from 10.11.2006 to 09.11.2007. It is also not at dispute that the said cab met with a road traffic accident on 29.09.2007 at about 10.20 p.m. and in the said accident vehicle suffered severe damages. Jurisdictional Bellur Police have registered the crime against the driver and submitted the FIR. The FIR copy is produced. Complainant intimated the accident to the OP, then left the vehicle at Sri Sai Colourium Garage. The surveyor of the OP inspected and examined the damaged vehicle, thereafter also OP failed to settle the claim. Complainant has produced all the necessary documents pertaining to said vehicle in question.<br /> <br /> 7. According to OP the driver Krishna was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. He had a licence to drive Auto rickshaw only, hence they repudiated the claim of the complainant on 06.12.2007. The repudiation letter and driving licence copy are produced. We have gone through the driving licence copy, it clearly shows that the said driver Krishna was permitted to drive light motor vehicle from 10.08.2006 to 09.08.2009. So as on the date of the accident the said driver possessed a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle. <br /> <br /> 8. When we go through the definition of the light motor vehicle as noted in Motor Vehicle Act 1988, it makes abundantly clear “ light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not excess (7500) kilograms;. Admittedly the vehicle involved in the accident is LMV. When the driver possessed valid driving licence to drive LMV as on the date of the accident, we do not find any substance in the defence or objections raised by the OP. The repudiation appears to be unjust and improper and without due application of mind. Under such circumstances we find complainant is able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 9. Of course complainant claimed a compensation including the settlement of the claim to the tune of Rs.4,16,000/-. On the perusal of the insurance policy, IDV is noted as Rs.3,07,700/-. OP has not disputed the fact of their surveyor having examined and inspected the damaged vehicle. Unfortunately neither the complainant nor the OP have produced the said Surveyor report. Under such circumstances we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the claim to the IDV of Rs.3,00,000/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for Rs.3,00,000/- and pay the same to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which complainant is entitled to claim an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the said Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of repudiation till realization and also entitled for the litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. <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 21st day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />