ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not paying the repair charges of the vehicle i.e. Rs.40,38,266.42 in respect of the damages met to his vehicle bearing KA-14 N-1943 and for direction to OP to pay the same along with interest at 18% per annum till realization and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is the owner of Mercedes Benz car bearing KA-14 N-1943.  On 03/04.01.2020 when he was returning from Karnool, Andhra Pradesh when negotiating near CK Palli Village, Ananthpur District, Andhra Pradesh on NH-44, one tractor was coming from opposite direction after filling diesel from Petrol bunk near Yerrampalli Village.  He tried to control the vehicle hitting the tractor and in that attempt he lost the control and the vehicle fell into a ditch and all the family member who were travelling in the said car got severe injuries and the vehicle was also got damaged. The driver of the tractor fled away from the spot.  The car was badly damaged, the head light, the fog light of both right and left side got damaged, suspension from chassis was fully damaged the main front mirror damaged, right front door running foot board, right side mirror right side front wheel got damaged. A complaint to the police was lodged but did not register the same instead, they gave a certificate regarding the damage that has caused to the vehicle.

3.     The insurance company was informed regarding the accident and the damage caused to, the said vehicle. The vehicle was towed to MB Sundaram Motors Mahadevapura, Bangalore by paying Rs.50,000/-, An estimate was prepared by the said Sundaram Motors amounting to Rs.38,88,266/- . The surveyor also visited, inspected and by obtaining all the documents of the vehicle issued a letter through OP on 04.03.2020 that the complainant is not having valid and effective Driving License to drive the said vehicle and thus repudiated the claim of the complainant. 

4.     It is contended that. the complainant was having a valid effective license to drive the vehicle such as motorcycle with gear, LMV transport as well as non-trasport vehicle.  The Yeshwantpur RTO issued a license to drive non-transport vehicle from 06.02.2016 to 18.12.2019 and the same was renewed from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2025.  The transport driving license was renewed from time to time i.e. 30.08.2019 to 29.08.2022. As on the date of accident i.e. on 04.01.2020 the complainant was having a valid Driving license. Further the RTO authorities provide 30 days grace period for renewing the driving license in case of expiry. He is having a effective DL from 1983 onwards till 2025. 

5.     It is contended that, the value of the Mercedes Car is Rs.80,00,000/-.  Due to the accident he has to suffer heavy loss and he could not get the vehicle repaired.  The repudiation of the claim of the complainant for repair of the vehicle has caused him mentally as well as financially. He had to pay Rs.1,000/- per day for his transportation as he could not get the vehicle repaired at the earliest. Further he had to incur Rs.50,000/- as towing charges and Rs.1,00,000/- as travelling expenses. The repudiation of the insurance claim by OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for having received the premium and hence the complaint.

6.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the commission through its advocate and filed version contending that the complaint is filed on false, frivolous and vexatious ground and liable to be dismissed with cost. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Further complainant had obtained private car insurance policy for the period from 24.12.2019 to 23.12.2020.  The claim was made for damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident on 04.01.2020 and as soon as the claim was lodged, a surveyor was appointed who assessed for a sum of Rs.10,46,693/- which is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicles Act.  After the survey of the damage to the vehicle, the necessary papers were handed over to the company and it was found that as on the date of accident, the driving license of the driver who was driving the vehicle, had expired on 18.12.2019 (non-transport).  This is in violation of the terms and conditions (3B) of the policy.  “Drivers clause of the policy lays down clearly the person authorized to drive a motor vehicle as : any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective DL at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. 

7.     The general exception 3(b) the company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of accidental loss or damages and/or liability caused sustained or incurred while the vehicle insured herein being driven by/or his for a purpose or being driven by him/her in the charge of any persons other than a driver as stated in the driver clause. In view of the breach and violation of the said condition, the insurance was repudiated and hence complainant is not entitle for any of the claim made in the complaint.  If at all the forum comes to the conclusion that the complainant is entitle for the repair charges, then, as per the surveyor assessment, the same has to be paid and not beyond the survey report and estimation. The complainant is not entitle for the claim made in the complaint.  The allegations made are all false and untenable far from facts and there is no negligence on the part of OP and hence prayed the forum to dismiss the complaint.

8.     In order to prove the case, both parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

9.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 :   In the Affirmative.

POINT NO.2 :   Partly in the Affirmative.

                        For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

10.   On perusing the complaint, the version, documents, evidence filed by the respective parties, it becomes clear that, the complainant is the owner of vehicle KA 14 N 1943 and the same has been insured with OP for the period from 24.12.2019 to 23.12.2020. It is not in dispute that the said car met with an accident as per the police report filed before the forum and the claim was also made before the insurance company i.e. OP.  Upon the said claim made, OP appointed a surveyor duly licensed by IRDA and he had made an assessment for a sum Rs.10,46,693/-.

11.   We have perused the insurance policy issued by OP wherein the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.10,74,070/- .  The only contention of the Op is that the driver of the vehicle i.e. complainant was not having proper and effective driving license as on the date of accident i.e. 04.01.2020. In the insurance policy marked as Ex. P4 it is mentioned as Drivers Clause: “Person classes of persons entitle to drive.”: Any person including the insured. Provided that a person driving holds an effective Driving Lidense at the time of the Accident and  is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that person holding an effective Learning License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfy the requirement of the Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.”

12.   The contention of OP is that as on the date of accident, the complainant was not having effective driving license at the time of accident and hence it is not bound to honour the claim.  Complainant has produced the RC, insurance copy of the vehicle and copy of the driving license. In the driving license marked as Ex P10, it is mentioned that LMV - 08.06.1983. MCWG - 24.01.1995, TRANS-08.06.1983, valid till 19.01.2025 (non-transport vehicle). Ex P9 is the extract driving license wherein the license for non-transport vehicle has been validated from 20.01.2020 to 19.01.2025 and transport vehicle 30.08.2019 to 29.08.2022. The driving license given to the driver was renewed from 20.01.2020 till 19.01.2025. This is in respect of non-transport vehicle. For the transport vehicle as on the date of accident complainant was having an effective driving license valid from 30.08.2019 to 29.08.2022.  When the complainant was having a driving license for transport vehicle, it does not stands to reason that he has no driving license to drive a non-transport vehicle.  The driving license with complainant had obtained had expired but was renewed from 20.01.2020. No materials has been placed by the OP that the complainant was not entitle to have the driving license or that he has been debarred from obtaining any driving license. In view of this having a driving license for a transport vehicle equally valid for to drive a non-transport vehicle.  There is no differentiation, manner and the habit of driving the vehicle i.e. transport and non-transport and the principle involved in driving the vehicle are one and the same. The complainant produced citation in Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigara before National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Parkashi and others reads thus:

“Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) – Motor insurance – Driving licence – Liability of insurance company – Insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that driver was holding licence to drive heavy transport vehicle (HTV) and motor cycle but he was driving a car which is a light motor vehicle (LMV) – Possession of licesne to drive HTV must be seen as sufficient qualification for a person to drive LMV also as the mechanism to drive in both the categories of vehicle is same – Whether driver was holding a valid licence and insurance company is liable.”

13.   In view of this the reasons for repudiation by the insurance company is only to harass the complainant and make him not to avail the benefit of beneficial legislation of getting the vehicle insured with the OP. Hence we are of the opinion that there is defy in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant on trivial grounds. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:

14.   In view of our answer to Point No.1, the complainant is entitle for the repair charges which he had incurred to get the vehicle repaired.  The complainant has produced the various photos to show the damage caused to his car.  There is no dispute in respect of the same. Complainant has also produced the estimate issued by M/s. Sundaram Motors Pvt. Ltd Bangalore wherein the total estimate for repair is Rs.38,88,266.42 . Though OP in the version and the affidavit evidence has stated that the surveyor appointed by it has assessed the damages at Rs.10,46,693/-, the same has not been (surveyor report as well as estimation of repair) produced. As pointed above, the ID value of the vehicle involved in the accident as per the insurance is Rs.10,74,070/- only.  Even the complainant might have incurred the expenses more than that amount to repair the vehicle, the liability of the insurance company is to the extent of the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.10,74,070/-. In view of this, we are of the opinion that it would be just, proper and reasonable to direct OP to pay Rs.10,74,070/- being the ID value of the said vehicle towards the repair charges of the said vehicle which met with an accident on 04.01.2020.  Further act of OP in rejecting the claim of the complainant and repudiating the claim put the complainant into mental agony, physical hardship for which we direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. OP is also directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on Rs.10,74,070/- from the date of accident i.e.04.01.2020 till payment of the entire amount. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. OP i.e. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,74,070/- to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e.04.01.2020 till payment of the entire amount.
3. Further OPs are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 24^th day of JANUARY 2022)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the certificate issued by Chana Kothappali Police.

Ex P2: Copy of the RC.

Ex. P3: Copy of the vehicle particulars issued by RTO.

Ex P4: Copy of the Insurance policy.

Ex P5: Photographs.

Ex P6: Quotation in respect of vehicle.

Ex P7: Copy of the repudiation letter

Ex P8: Copy of repudiation letter dt:13.07.2020

Ex P9: Copy of the Driving license extract

Ex P10: Copy of the Driving License. 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Manjunath G, Chief Manager – Legal Claims of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the policy with terms and conditions.

Ex R2: Copy of the survey report.

Ex R3: Copy of the Driving License.

Ex R4: Copy of the Repudiation letter.

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

RAK*