THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 240/2014
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Kumta Branch, Through its Divisional Office,
Radha Govind Complex, Kaikini Road,
Karwar – 581 301.
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Mr.Y.Sashidhar Shetty.
…….Appellant/s.
(By Shri/Smt B.C.Seetharam Rao, Adv.,)
-Versus-
1. Smt. Bhavani, A/a 56 years,
W/o Sri. Nagappa Patagar,
2. Sri. Nagappa Jatti Patagar,
Aged about 61 years.
Both are residents of Horabhaga,
Swarna Gadde, Kumta Taluk,
Uttar Kannada District,
PIN – 581 343.
……….. Respondent/s
(By Shri/Smt T.M.Naik, Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.64/2013 on the file of Karwar District Commission preferred this appeal before this Commission again the order directing him to pay Rs.1,84,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 28/09/2012 till realization with cost of Rs.2,000/-, wherein in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant submits that the complainants are the parents of the deceased Jatti @ Divakar Nagappa Patagar who was the owner/driver of Maruti Omni Taxi No.KA:47/3642 which was insured with them and valid from 03.11.2011 to 02.11.2012. Such being the case on 28/09/2012 the said car was met with an accident which resulted damages to the vehicle. Subsequently, the complainants claimed own damage claim, but they repudiated the claim for want of valid D.L. and also in the letter they have stated that the driver at the time of accident had only a Driving license to drive LMV (NT) and he has not valid D.L. to drive passenger vehicle and therefore the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Commission and obtained an order in their favour. Hence, this appeal.
2. On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the deceased owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-47-3642 who is the son of the complainants met with an accident and vehicle got damaged, for which they claimed for own damage, but the said claim was repudiated for only the reason that he had no valid D.L. to drive the passenger vehicle (Private Vehicle), whereas the Opposite Party/appellant admits that he has D.L. to drive LMV (NT). We are of the opinion that the deceased owner/son of the complainant had a valid D.L. as on the date of accident to drive LMV (NT). NT is only a Non transport vehicle which was permitted by RTO to drive Non Transport Vehicle, that does not mean, the driver should not drive LMV/ passenger vehicle. The Opposite Party had wrongly come to the conclusion and repudiated the claim without any valid reasons.
3. The District Commission had cited number of decisions in support of upholding the claim made by complainant. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law and we are of the opinion that as on the date of accident, the son of the complainant who was driving the vehicle had a valid D.L. to drive the particular type of vehicle. Hence, the appeal has no grounds for consideration. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:25/01/2014 passed by Uttara Kannada District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.64/2013 is hereby confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the Respondents/complainants.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
