Date of Filing  : 01.10.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.04.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT        

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

C.C. NO.405 /2010

TUESDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

Mr. J. Jivaram,

S/o. Mr. Jarupji,

No.504/281, Dr. Ambedkar Street,

Manali,

Chennai – 600 068.                                                      .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

1.  The Branch Manager,

The future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

1^st Floor, North Wing,

Karumuttu Nilayam,

No.192, Annan Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

2. The General Manager,   

The Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.001, Trade Plaza,

414, Veer Sankar Marg,

Prabhadevi,

Mumbai – 400 025.                                            ..  Opposite parties.

Counsel for complainant                    :  M/s. A. Laxmi Raj Rathnam &   

                                                             others  

Counsel for opposite parties            :  M/s. N. Vijayaraghavan &

                                                              another.

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental agony and physical strain suffered by the complainant  with cost.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submits that he insured his TATA SUMO GRANDE SX vehicle bearing registration No. TN 18 9604 with the opposite parties for which the 2^nd opposite party issued a policy dated:30.06.2009 with cover note issued dated:26.06.2009 and the period of insurance commencing from 07.07.2009 to 06.07.2010 through the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 02.08.2009 driven by  his driver Mr. Krishnamurthy for which a case is registered by the Puthalputtu Police Station of Chittoor District.  The complainant left the vehicle for repair to rectify the defect to the Concorde Motors (India) Limited and the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party for the inspection of the vehicle for the claim.

2.     After inspection of the said vehicle by the 1^st opposite party the Concorde Motors (India ) Limited started to repair the vehicle whereas the opposite parties instead of paying the claim turned down the legal claim of the complainant due to which the complainant was constrained to pay the bills and take delivery of the vehicle.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,727/- to Concorde Motors (India) Limited for repair and to rectify the defects.  The complainant states that he is legally entitled for the above sum from the opposite parties whereas for the nofault of the complainant turning down his claim by the opposite parties is illegal and improper. 

3.     The complainant submits that he ran from pillar to post to arrange money for payment of the bill to Concorde Motors (India) Limited for the repair works however the complainant estimated the same to a tune of Rs.2,50,000/-.  The complainant submits that he issued legal notice on 01.02.2010 and the opposite parties replied on 13.02.2010 stating that “On verification from the Claim Form and MVI report of Chittoor it was noticed that the vehicle was driven by your clients’ driver Mr. D. Krishnamoorthy, S/o. Duraisamy who has obtained the Driving License issued by the Asst. Licensing Authority, Chennai (East) with Driving Licence No.R/TN/004/007066/2006 dated:13.06.2006 and the same is valid till 13.06.2009 only, whereas the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 02.08.2009 and hence the driver Mr. Krishnamoorthy, was not holding valid and effective Driving License on the date of accident.  Accordingly, as per Sec 3 (1) of the MV Act, 1988 the driver must posses a valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the specific class or type of vehicle.  In this case, since the driver of your client Mr. Krishnamoorthy, S/o. Duraisamy did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN 18 9604, the claim is not admissible”.  The complainant submits that the driver of the vehicle approached the authority and has applied for renewal of the license on 26.06.2009 to the Regional Transport Officer, Redhills R.T.O., Chennai.  The complainant submits that he has a legal claim and the opposite parties are bound to pay the claim of the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties admitted the fact that the complainant had availed a Package Policy of Insurance 2009 – VO 34388 – FPV for the Tata Sumo Vehicle TN 18 9604 for the period from 07.07.2009 to 06.07.2010.   A claim was lodged on the insurer in respect of damages to the insured vehicle in accident dated:02.08.2009.  The insurer appointed a surveyor to assess the loss / damages.   The opposite parties state that the driver of the said vehicle Mr. Krishnamurthy did not hold a valid driving license on 02.08.2009.  His driving license had expired on 13.06.2009 itself.  It was not renewed as such on 02.08.2009.

5.     Accordingly, by letter dated:13.02.2010, the insurer  had denied the claim as not admissible under the contract of insurance since the driver of the vehicle was not duly licenced on the date of accident.  There is no valid cause of action to sustain the claim.  The opposite parties deny the allegation that the driver  of the complainant has applied for renewal of licence on 26.06.2009 and the complainant has spent Rs.2,00,727/- towards repairs.   The complainant is not entitled for any relief and as such the claim is not payable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4  marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

7.      The point for consideration before the Forum is

1. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.2,00,727/-  towards repairing charges of the vehicle No.TN 18 9604 as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

8.      On point:-

Both parties has not come forward to advance any oral arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant is the owner of TATA SUMO GRANDE SX vehicle bearing registration No. TN 18 9604 was duly insured with the opposite party.  Ex.A1 is the registration certificate of the vehicle.  Ex.A2 is the copy of insurance policy with cover note.  As per the policy the period of insurance commencing from 07.07.2009 to 06.07.2010.  Further the complainant pleaded and contended that, while the vehicle was driven by the driver Mr. Krishnamurthy, the vehicle met with an accident on 02.08.2009 for which, a case in Crime No.111/2009 is registered by the Puthalputtu Police Station of Chittoor District as per Ex.A3.  Thereafter, the complainant took the vehicle for repairing with Concorde Motors (India)Limited  and duly informed to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party also inspected the vehicle and the surveyor also inspected the vehicle and filed his report and instructed to carry out the repair works.

9.     Accordingly, the Concorde Motors (India) Limited started their repair works.  But the opposite parties instead of paying the claim turned down resulting that the complainant is constrained to pay the bills for Rs.2,00,727/- and took delivery of the vehicle.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A7 bills and tax invoice only a sum of Rs.95,477/- alone paid by the complainant.   As per the surveyor report Ex.B2, net liability arrived as Rs.71,269/-.  Other bill amounts for Rs.9200/-, by Chandru Auto Stores, Concorde Motors (India) Limited tax invoice Rs.573/- receipt of Rs.14,577/-, Rs.49,000/-, Rs.30,000/- Rs.1,100/- towards bumper parts assemble RBM internal base etc. are already included in the tax invoice.  The receipt amounts of Rs.14,577/-, 49,000/-, 30,000/- & 1900/- are the part payment against the total claim of Rs.95,476/-.  The surveyor after due assessment came to the conclusion that net liability is Rs.71,296/-.  Further the complainant contended that the opposite party repudiated the claim only on the ground of subsistence of effective driving license on the date of accident held by the driver of the vehicle.  But as per Ex.A8, the driver had applied for renewal of driving license which is time barred.   The driver who drove the vehicle applied for renewal of driving license as per Ex.A9 on 26.06.2009 which was duly accepted by the Transport department and it is processed for renewal.  Further, the contention of the complainant is that as per section 3(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988 the driver of the vehicle approached the authority for renewal of driving license as per section 15(1) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 within the grace period of 30 days establishes that on the date of accident the driver had no effective driving license.  Further the complainant contended that due to the repudiation of the claim and non compliance of payment at the time of repairing the vehicle, the complainant sustained great mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation of mental agony. 

10.    The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the complainant availed a package policy of insurance of 2009-VO 34388-FPV for the TATA Sumo vehicle No.TN 18 9604 fort the period of 07.07.2009 to 06.07.2010.  The complainant also lodged a claim for the damages caused to the vehicle due to the accident dated 02.08.2009.  Immediately after the receipt of information, the opposite party appointed the surveyor to assess the damages.  During survey it was found that the driver of the vehicle Mr. Krishnamurthy did not hold a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident.  The driving license was expired on 13.06.2009 itself due application for renewal has not been intimated properly.  Hence the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A9 to Ex.A10 within the prescribed grace period, the driver of the vehicle Mr. Krishnamurthy has applied for renewal which amount to holding of valid and effective driving license.  Alternatively it is not a violation of policy conditions. 

11.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the  surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages and submitted the report stating that net liability is Rs.71,269/-.  The claim of Rs.2,00,727/- is not acceptable because the spare parts and the other materials having its own depreciation.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the compensation claimed is extraordinary and imaginary.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the law is well settled in 2015 3 CPJ NC 2016 and 2 CPJ NC that the assessment of Surveyor should be considered and the report of the Surveyor is valid.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of considered view that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.71,270/- towards the cost of repair and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.71,270/- (Rupees seventy one thousand two hundred and seventy only) towards the cost of repair and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)  towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^TH day of April 2018. 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT