Before the District Froum :Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 3rd day of March, 2005
C.D.No. 88/2004
V. Ravi Kumar,
S/o. V.V.N. Lakshmi Reddy,
R/o. H.Kottala (V),
Bethamcherla (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri B.K. Rama Seshanna, Advocate.
-Vs-
The Divisional Manager,
M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd,
D.No. 40/526-12,
1st floor, H.D.C.T Complex,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
E. Sreenivasulu. Advocate.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.23,000/- as repair charges of the tractor trailer, Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony, cost of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the owner of tractor trailer bearing No. A.P 21 T 6306-6307, which was insured with opposite party vide policy bearing No. 611500/31/00721.On 21.10.2002 at about 10-00 A.M, the said tractor was removing waste soil from the complainant’s mine and was going upwards from the mine, the tractor trailer fell into the mine as the link between tractor-trailer detached from each other, it resulted in damages to the said tractor and trailer. Immediately, thereafter the complainant informed the opposite party about the said accident and the opposite party deputed a surveyor to conduct spot survey of the said vehicle, and a second surveyor was deputed to assess the damages of the said vehicle. Thereafter, a third surveyor was appointed to inspect the said vehicle at garage and also estimated damages to the extent of Rs.23,000/- and intimated the complainant orally. The complainant spent nearly Rs.35,000/- for repairs and submitted bills along with claim form in Dec, 2002. Inspite of several requests and demands the opposite party did not pay the essessed amount to the complainant and repudiated the claim of the complainant through its communication on 18.2.2003 stating that the driver was holding non-effective driving licence of the tractor trailer. Thereafter, the complainant got issued Lawyer’s notice dt 6.10.2003 which was received by opposite party and gave reply on 16.10.2003. The objection of the opposite party for repudiating the complainant’s claim doesn’t fit in the facts and circumstances of the complainant’s case. Hence, the said repudiation of claim by the opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Repudiation letter of opposite party addressed to the complainant dt 18.2.2003 (2)Lawyers notice dt 6.10.2003 of complainant addressed to the opposite party and (3) reply notice dt 16.10.2003 by opposite party’s counsel to the Ex A.2 addressed to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of her complaint avernemnts and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared before this Forum through its standing counsel and contested the case by filling denial written version and questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case either in law or on facts.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits the complainant’s vehicle bearing No. AP 21 T 6306-6307 was insured with it vide policy bearing No. 611500/31/02/00098 for a period from 14.6.2002 to 13.6.2003. It also admits the said vehicle met with accident on 21.10.2002 and Betamcherla Police Station has registered a case under FIR NO. 116/2002 on 9.11.2002. On intimation the opposite party deputed three surveyors to conduct, spot survey, Final Survey and post repairs inspection. The vehicle involved in the said accident is Goods Carrying Commercial tractor-trailer, a transport vehicle and the effective driving licence required to drive this vehicle as per M.V Act and M.V. Rules is “Tractor-Trailer (Transport)”. But in the claim form submitted by the complainant one Mr G.Anand was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident and was holding driving licence to drive tractor-trailer (Non-Transport). Thus the driver was not holding effective and valid driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident and the complainant knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not holding effecting driving licence which is clear violation of policy terms and conditions and further submits that the said vehicle was not carrying waste soil but actually carrying stone slabs as evident from the photos of spot survey report and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. Lastly it submits that if the Hon’ble Forum comes to conclusion that the complainant is entitled to compensation and the same may be restricted to Rs.19,000/- as assessed by Mr E. Mukund, Independent IRDA licence surveyor.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on the following documents Viz (1) policy bearing No. 611500/31/00721 of the complainant’s vehicle (2) claim form submitted by complainant to the opposite party (3) driving licence of G.Anand (Attested Xerox copy) (4) spot survey report dt 30.10.2002 of Govindappa (5) Final Survey Report dt 8.11.2004 of E.Mukund and (6) Post Repair inspection report dt 26.11.2002 of P. Narendra Kishore, besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of written version as defence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.6 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
8. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case alleging deficiency of service and deficiency conduct on part of opposite parties?:-
9. The facts which are not indispute are that the complainant owner of the tractor/trailer bearing No. AP 21T 6306-6307 and the said tractor was covered under the policy bearing No. AP 21T 6306-63-07 for a period from 14.6.2002 to 13.6.2003 and the tractor/trailer met with accident on 21.10.2002, while the policy was inforce and the opposite party appointed three surveyors to conduct spot survey, final survey and to assess the damages to the said accident vehicle and the loss was estimated to Rs.19,000/-.
10. The main thrust of argument of opposite party is that the driver on wheels at the time of the said accident was not possessing valid effective driving licence authorized to drive tractor/trailer of the complainant as per M.V Act and M.V. Rules admittedly the said driver was possessing a licence to drive tractor/trailer (Non-Transport) and not tractor/trailer. (Transport) which is valid licence as per opposite party and brought on record Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 2 (10) of M.V.A reads as follows. ”Driving licence means - - - authorizing the Person Specified there in to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description”. The driver on the wheels at the time of the accident admittedly is G.Anand, who was possessing driving licence to drive tractor trailer (Non-Transport), which is marked as Ex B.3. A bare personal of Ex B.3 goes to show that the said Ex B.3 was issued by Addi. Licensing Authority, Ananthapur to Mr G. Anand to drive tractor/ trailer (non transport) and the said licence is valid from 2.7.1999 to 19.7.2017. The alleged accident took place on 21.10.2002, when the said vehicle was used for hire purpose as per the claim form of the complainant in Ex B.2, the said vehicle was transporting thrash admittedly goods. Section 2 (13) of M.V.A stipulates that “Goods includes live-stock and any thing (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but doesn’t include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car on in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers traveling in the vehicle”. It Section 2 (47) of M.V.A says that “a transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage vehicle, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle”. Hence, from all there provisions read together in a homogenous manner leave no doubt that the tractor/trailer of the complainant was admittedly carrying goods, hence, it is a transporting vehicle, therefore the driver must possess driving licence to drive tractor trailer (Transport). There is no doubt that the driver must have a driving licence to drive a particular class(es) of vehicle and it is only in respect of these class(es) that the driving licence shall be deemed effective. It is admitted fact that in the instant case the driver G.Anand’s licence was valid for driving tractor/ trailer (Non-Transport) where as the vehicle he was driving was transporting vehicle, legal position is that by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that if one has a driving licence to drive tractor- trailer (Non-transport) it automatically entitles him to drive a tractor/ trailer transporting vehicle.
11. The opposite party is support of their case relied on the following citation reported in 2004 (2) ALD (cons) Pg 22 (National Commission) between United Insurance Company Vs Jaya Rajendra Kumar Nanda, where in it was held that, insured vehicle met with accident, which is a light motor vehicle and found driven by a person having a licence for medium Goods Vehicle. Licence is not valid. Hence Insurance is justified in repudiating the claim.
12. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following citation reported in 2001 (6) ALD 60 (Supreme Court) between Nagashetty Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd and others, where in, it was held that a person having a permanent driving licence to drive a tractor is also competent to drive a tractor with a trailer attached to it for carrying goods, Insurance Company cannot disown its liability on the ground that no separate driving licence is possessed by the driver to drive the trailer. But in the present case the dispute raised was regarding the transport and Non-transport licence. Admitedly, the driver G.Anand was possessing driving licence to driver tractor/trailer. (Non-Transport), but the said driver was driving a transport vehicle, hence, the said driving licence of G.Anand is not a valid driving licence to drive the complainant’s transporting vehicle. Hence, the decision relied by the opposite party has little relevancy to this case.
13. In the light of the position of Law as discussed above and following the above mentioned judgment, the said driver did not possess effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not remaining entitle to the reliefs as sought in the complaint.
14. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 3rd day of March, 2005
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
