IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

          SRI. C.V. MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint has filed by Sri Ravi.S.R. S/o Ramachandra.B. resident of Holenarsipura, Hassan District to direct the opposite party the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bangalore to pay compensation amount of Rs.4,96,944/- and damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The complainant had purchased Mahindra Bolero Power + ZLX vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13-C-3937 in the year 2018 and got the same attached to KEB for hire purchase under agreement. That on 18.05.2018 the driver Mr.Lokanathan along with KEB officials were on their way to Thitimati Ane Chouku Forest Area at about 7.45 AM when the vehicle was moving monkeys were crossing the road then driver all of a sudden tried to move from one side of the road other side as a result sudden application of the break, the Mahindra Bolero was dragged and hit to the road side tree as a result Jeep was heavily damaged and the driver has sustained minor injuries.  The complainant has intimated the  accident to opposite party and its surveyor assessed the damage caused to the vehicle.
3. It is further case of complainant that he got repaired the vehicle at Indian Garrage, Mysuru which belonging to Mahindra and Mahindra Company.  The complainant had paid Rs.4,96,944/- for repair of the vehicle and thereafter submitted claim application.  The opposite party has repudiated the claim on silly ground.  Hence, this complaint.
4. The opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant had insured his vehicle with this opposite party subject to terms and conditions and limitations of the policy.  The opposite party further admitted that surveyor has submitted the report with regard to assessment of the damages.  It is the case of opposite party that the driver of the said vehicle Mr.Lokanathan had no valid effective driving license on the date of accident since his license was expired on 14.12.2015.  The driver did not possess valid and effective driving license as such, the opposite party has repudiated the claim.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as such, requested to dismiss the complaint. 
5. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.13 documents.  On behalf of opposite party that one Dr.M.S.Tippeswamy, Senior Manager working in the Divisional Office, Mysuru filed affidavit evidence and got marked Exhibits R.1 to R.6 documents.
6. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by both the learned counsels in addition to written brief and the points that would arise for determination are as under;
   1. Whether the complainant proves that repudiation of claim made by the opposite party is illegal and  not justifiable that amounts to deficiency in service?
   2. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

7.   Our findings on the above points is as under;

·        Point No.1:-In the affirmative.

·        Point No.2:-partly in the affirmative for the below;

R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1 and 2:-The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that though the driver of the vehicle who was on the wheel at relevant time had effective driving license even then the opposite party has illegally rejected the claim application.  As against this the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the driving license of the driver was expired on 14.12.2015 and he had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident as such, they have justified repudiation of the claim of complainant.
9. The opposite party has not disputed that the complainant being owner of Mahindra Bolero Power + ZLX vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13-C-3937 and he had insured the said vehicle with it for the period from 05.03.2018 to 04.03.2019.  The opposite party has produced Exhibit R.1 certificate of insurance of the complainant’s vehicle and according to this on the date of accident, the said vehicle was covered with insurance.  The sole contention of the opposite party is that the driver had no effective driving license at the time of accident i.e. on 18.05.2018 at about 7.45 AM.
10. The complainant has produced Exhibit P.13 extract of driving license issued by RTO, Madikeri.  According to this Lokananthan.M the driver of complainant who was on wheel had effective driving license for non-transport vehicle from 20.12.2012 to 01.08.2030.  The said driver though had transport vehicle driving license from 20.12.2012 but it was expired on 14.12.2015.  The vehicle belonging to complainant which was met with an accident on 18.05.2018 at 7.45 AM is also light motor vehicle and its unladen weight is 1510kg.  The learned counsel for the complainant has laid their hands on AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 – Mukund Devagun Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited.  The Hon’ble Three Judges Bench under Sections 2(10), 2(21), 2(15), 2(47), 2(48), 3 and 10 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Rules 8, 14, 17 and 34 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 held that Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) includes transport vehicle as per weight prescribed in Section 2(21) R/w Section 2(48).  The driver holding LMV license and drive all vehicles of class including transport vehicle.  No separate endorsement required to drive such transport vehicles.  It is further observed that definition of “LMV” has to be given full effect to and it has to be read with 10(2) (d)which makes it abundantly clear that Light Motor Vehicle is also transport vehicle, Gross Vehicle Weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs as specified in provision.  Thus a driver is issued a license as per the class of vehicle i.e. LMV, transport vehicle or Omni bus or another vehicle of other categories as per gross vehicle weight or unladen weight as specified in Section 2(21) of Act.  Provision of Section 3 of Act requires that a person in order to drive “transport vehicle” must have authorization.  Once a license is issued to drive LMV it would also mean specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle or Omni bus, gross vehicle weight or motor car, road roller or tractor unladen weight of which case may be does not exceed 7500 kgs.
11. The complainant has produced Exhibit P.11 copy of R.C. extract of vehicle No.KA-13-C-3937 and according to this manufacturing date is 12/2017 and unladen weight is 1510.  According to the above recent decision of the Apex Court rendered by Hon’ble Three Judges Bench – wherein it is clearly held that if the driver is having valid and effective driving license he can drive either transport or non-transport vehicle which unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs.  In case on hand also the driver of complainant had valid and effective non-transport vehicle driving license for the period from 20.12.2012 to 01.08.2030.  Therefore, the decision taken by the opposite party in repudiating the claim on the ground that the driver of complainant had no valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and his license was expired on 14.12.2015 issued to drive transport vehicle is not proper and justifiable. 
12. The opposite party has not disputed repair charges of the vehicle since its surveyor also assessed the damages more or less of the Indian Garage bill amount.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to repair charges of Rs.4,96,944/- with interest from the date of repudiation of claim till payment.  The complainant has not submitted any material for award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  However, due to rejection of his claim application, the complainant was compelled to pay the repair charges out of his pocket as such, he has to suffer mentally and for that reason he is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation in addition to litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Sri Ravi.S.R. is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,96,944/- with interest at the rate of 10% from 11.12.2018 till the date of payment.
2. It is further ordered that the opposite party shall pay compensation and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of order.  Otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till payment.
3. Furnish copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 7^thDAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019)

                                                   (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                        PRESIDENT 

                                                 (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                         MEMBER