IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 21.01.09
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.22/09
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Harikumar, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., House No.8, XL/3599, Fourth Floor,
Reddiar Compound, Elizabeth Alexander Memorial Building,
Mullackal, Shanmugham Road,
Alappuzha. Marine Drive, Cochin.
(By Adv.Babu Joseph) (By Adv.Saji Isaac.K.J)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant is the registered owner of the Tata Indica Car bearing No. KL.04- W 2579 that holds rent-a car permit. On 1st March 2007, the said car met with an accident in Nazreth Junction, in Alappuzha-Changanacherry road. One of the passengers died when all others were seriously injured. The vehicle was totally damaged. The Ramankary police registered a crime. At the time of the accident the vehicle was holding a valid insurance from the opposite party. At the material time, one Mr.Benny Joseph was driving the said vehicle who holds a valid license for the same. The complainant lodged an application for claim with the opposite party with all the relevant records. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence at the material time. As per S.2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act the driver was holding a valid license, the complainant asserts. The complainant is entitled to the damages of Rs.280621/-(Rupees two lacs eighty thousand six hundred and twenty one only) with 12% interest per annum since 1st March 2007. Nonetheless the opposite party repudiated the claim on false and flimsy reasons. The service of the opposite party is deficient. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. According to the opposite party, there was outright violation of the conditions of the policy. At the time of the accident, the person on wheels was not having a valid license, for he was not a badge holder for driving a transport/taxi vehicle. More over, even assuming that the opposite party is liable, the said liability is limited to either the obtainable market value at the material time of the accident or to the expense to be incurred to get the vehicle repaired. The complainant is not entitled to the damages of Rs.280621/-(Rupees two lacs eighty thousand six hundred and twenty one only). For, the policy conditions are obviously violated. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite party asserts.
2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A9 were marked. Exbt Al is the inspection report, A2 is the copy of FIS & FIR, A3 is the copy of the charge sheet, A4 is the Mahsar, A5 is the policy certificate A6 is the photographs of the damaged vehicle, A7 is the copy of the driving license of the deceased, A8 is the proceedings of cancellation of the registration of the vehicle and A9 is copy of the estimate of Focus Motors. On the side of the opposite party, the Joint RTO was examined as RWl, the executive of the opposite party was examined as RW2 and the surveyor was examined as RW3, and the documents Exbts Bl to B3 were marked. Exbt B1 is the Motor claim form, B2 is the copy of the driving license of the deceased and B3 is the survey report.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of both the parties, the questions come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether there was violation of the policy conditions?
(2) To what extent, the complainant's vehicle sustained damage?
(3) Relief and cost?
4. Admittedly, the accident took place on 1st March 2007. The existence of the policy and the person who drove the car at the material time is not denied or disputed. What is forcefully contended by the opposite party is that there is flagrant violation of the policy conditions. The momentous contention of the opposite party is that the person who was on the wheel of the vehicle at the material time was not a badge holder. We meticulously analyzed the materials put on record by the parties. The counsel for the complainant took us through Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 which reads as S.3(1), No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub - section (2) of section 75 unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.
5. On a closer scrutiny of the afore said clause, it reads as, the persons holding an effective driving license is not barred from driving a taxi vehicle even if any endorsement to that effect is lacking in the said license. To put it otherwise, the law permits a person having a valid license to drive LMV vehicle also to drive a taxi car. . It is noteworthy that the opposite party has no case that the driver of the vehicle was not a license holder. On the other hand the definite complainant case is that the person on the wheel at the time of the accident was a valid license holder. As to this, it appears that, the opposite party does not make it a point to disprove the said contention of the complainant or to rather raise a serious dispute. In this context, needless to say we are persuaded to settle the said issue in favor of the complainant.
6. Concededly, the material vehicle was a brand new car. The opposite party inspected the vehicle and valued the same at Rs.280621/-(Rupees two lacs eighty thousand six hundred and twenty one only), and insured paid premium on this amount. In this context, we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite party is bound by the value put by it for the vehicle while issuing the insurance policy certificate to the complainant. However, we take notice that the accident took place on 1st March 2007 viz. three months thereafter the policy. Obviously, the value of the vehicle must have been depreciated, no less than to that extent. Bearing in mind the said aspect those three months had elapsed following the issuance of policy, we are of the view that the value of the vehicle is to be rounded up to Rs.275000/-( Rupees two lacs seventy five thousand only).
We, in view of the facts and findings herein above direct the opposite party to pay a sum Rs.275000/-(Rupees two lacs seventy five thousand only) to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from the date of the complainant claiming the policy amount with the opposite party till its recovery. The opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant and a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) which will serve the purpose. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Harikumar (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the Inspection Report
Ext. A2 - The copy of the FIS & FIR
Ext. A3 - The copy of the Charge Sheet – Final Report
Ext. A4 - The copy of the Mahasar
Ext. A5 - The copy of the Policy Certificate
Ext. A6 - The Photographs of the damaged vehicle (2 nos.)
Ext. A7 - The copy of the Driving Licence of the deceased
Ext. A8 - The proceedings of cancellation of the registration of the vehicle
Ext. A9 - The copy of the estimate of Focuz Motors
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Mohandas.N.K (Witness)
RW2 - Rahul.P (Witness)
RW3 - Rajeshkumar.T.K (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The Motor Claim Form
Ext. B2 - The copy of the Driving Licence
Ext. B3 - The Motor Final Survey Report
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
