Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/348/2012

Ramineni Venkateswara Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

B.K. Naidu

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:17-10-2012 

                                                                                                Date of Order:08-06-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                                VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                              Monday, the 8^th day of June, 2015.

                             CONSUMER CASE No.348/2012

Between:-

Sri Ramineni Venkateswara Rao, S/o Basavaiah,

Hindu, aged 44 years, residing at D. No. 10-32-6,

Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam,

                                                                                                     ….. Complainant

And:-

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company

 Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Corporate

 Motor Claims, D. No. 48-14-115, Laxmi Royal

Plaza No.304, Near Spencers Hyper Market, New

Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                          …  Opposite Party

                     

This case coming on 18.05.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B. K. Naidu, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri K. Sailesh Prasad, Advocate for the Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

        (As per Smt. K. Saroja Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had obtained a commercial policy No.VGC0266252000100 to Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck No. AP 31 TA 2616 from the Opposite Party for one year i.e., 29.02.2012 to 28.02.2013.      The Complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 04.06.2012 then the Complainant made a Claim Form on 08.06.2012.  The Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant stating that the vehicle has no fitness at the time of accident.   The Complainant issued a legal notice dated 03.09.2012, the Opposite Party received the same.  Hence, this Complaint.

2.       a) to direct the Opposite Party to pay the policy amount of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and Seventy thousand only) along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident i.e., 04.06.2012;

          b) to order the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards  damages;

          c) to order the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this complaint and;  

          d) For such other relief or reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper in the interests of justice as otherwise, the Complainant will be put to irreparable loss and damages.

 

3.       The Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their counter.   The Opposite Party stated that upon receiving the intimation from the Complainant, the Opposite Party appointed an Insurance Surveyor and who assessed the loss at Rs.93,570/-.   The Complainant produced documents including the fitness certificate and ID proof issued by the Visakhapatnam Motor Vehicle Inspector and found out that the fitness certificate had expired on 03.03.2012, as the vehicle met with accident on 04.06.2012.   The Complainant did not renewal fitness certificate of the said vehicle and driven vehicle till 04.06.2012, which is against the transport rules, on 19.07.2012 the Opposite Party issued a repudiation letter to the Complainant.   So, they have no liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

4.       At the time of enquiry, both parties filed affidavits as well as written arguments to support their contentions.   Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.B1 to B5 are marked for either side.

 

5.       Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Certificate of Registration issued by the A.P. Transport Department in the name of the Complainant dated 05.05.2012.  Ex.A2 is the Insurance Policy copy issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 29.02.2012.   Ex.A3 is the photo copy of letter sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 19.07.2012.   Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Quotation given by the Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd,. to the Complainant dated 17.06.2012.   Ex.A5 is the  original Photographs 6 (six).  Ex.A6 is the office copy of Registered Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the Opposite Party dated 03.09.2012. Ex.A7 is the Acknowledgement from the 04.09.2012.

 

6.       Ex.B1 is the photo copy of Survey Report issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 25.06.2012.   Ex.B2 is the photo copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 08.06.2012.           Ex.B3 is the photo copy of Certificate of Registration issued by the Govt. of A.P. Transport Department in favour of the Complainant dated 04.03.2010.  Ex.B4 is the photo copy of Form-38 Certificate of fitness.  Ex.B5 is the photo copy of Policy Schedule, Premium Computation Table, Certificate of Insurance (Goods Carrying Vehicle) and Commercial Vehicles Package Policy issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 29.02.2012.

 

7.       According to Ex.B1 the surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.93,570.30 paise and he stated that the fitness certificate is not valid.   So, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the plea that the Complainant had driven the vehicle without fitness certificate at the time of accident.

 

8.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.   Whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

9.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that there is no dispute regarding the insurance of the vehicle by the Complainant.    After intimation made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party appointed an insurance surveyor who found out that the fitness certificate had expired on 03.05.2012, the vehicle met with an accident on 04.06.2012.   The Complainant has driven the vehicle without fitness certificate to his vehicle on4.6.2012   According to Sec.123 of Motor Vehicle Act, it is submited that no transport vehicle can be used at any public place without a valid fitness certificate.  Sec.38 of the Motor Vehicle Act, deals with certificate of the fitness of the transport vehicles which reads as under:-

 

          “38. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 39, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 22, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form H as set forth in the First Schedule, issued by the prescribed authority, to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the rules made thereunder.   Where the prescribed authority refuse to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.”   

 

          It is clear that the vehicle has no fitness certificate at the time of accident to the alleged vehicle.   As such, the Opposite Party rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant.    As there is no fitness certificate to the Complainant’s vehicle at the time of accident, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.   Moreover, the Complainant did not file any fitness certificate, to show that he did not drive the vehicle on the date of the accident without fitness to his vehicle.  But he failed to file any documents before this Forum regarding the vehicle fitness which is raised by the Opposite Party.   We are of the considered opinion, that the Complainant has driven the vehicle without fitness certificate.   So, he is not entitled to any compensation and other reliefs.   Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

10.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 8^th day of June, 2015.         

             

   Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                                                         

President                              Male Member                      Lady Member

                                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	05.05.2012	Certificate of Registration issued by the A.P. Transport Department in the name of the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A02	29.02.2012	Insurance Policy copy issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A03	19.07.2012	Letter sent by the OP to the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A04	17.06.2012	Quotation given by the Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., to the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.A05		Photos 6 (six)	Original
Ex.A06	03.09.2012	Registered Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to the OP	Office copy
Ex.A07	04.09.2012	Acknowledgement	Original

For the Opposite Party:-               

                                                          

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	25.06.2012	Survey Report issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.B02	08.06.2012	Motor Insurance Claim form issued by the OP to the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.B03	04.03.2010	Certificate of Registration issued by the Govt. of A.P. Transport Department in favour of the Complainant	Photo copy
Ex.B04	04.03.2010	Form-38 Certificate of Fitness	Photo copy
Ex.B05	29.02.2012	Policy Schedule, Premium Computation Table, Certificate of Insurance (Goods Carrying Vehicle) and commercial Vehicle Package Policy issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant	Photo copy

 

  Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                                                       

President                          Male Member                                Lady Member