Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/86/2014

Manjunatha H S/o. Hanumanthappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri. K.S.Lokesh

27 Aug 2015

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 20/10/2014

     DISPOSED ON: 27/08/2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 86/2014 DATED:27th August 2015

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH.     PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.H.RAMASWAMY,               MEMBER

                                B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)

SMT.G.E.SOWBHAGYALAKSHMI,       

                                B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

                               

 

COMPLAINANT	Manjunatha. H, S/o Hanumanthappa, R/o J.J. Hatti village, Tal and Distrct Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. K.S. Lokesh,  Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, I Floor, Maganur Complex, Near KSRTC Bus Stand, B.D. Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. B.M. Ravichandra,  Advocate)

 

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH.  PRESIDENT.

ORDER

 

The above said complainant has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 for the relief to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs.78,600/- towards damages to his vehicle TATA ACE bearing No.KA-16-B-4639 (hereinafter called vehicle) and for costs, interest etc.  

2.     Brief facts of the case of complainant case are that, he is the RC owner of the said vehicle and the same was insured with the OP under policy No.1406532334002676 for the period from 14.11.2013 to 13.11.2014 and the said policy covered with all the risk.  It is furter submitted that, on 11.07.2014 the said vehicle met with an accident at Jogihalli village, Hiriyur Taluk and severely damaged and the complainant has not lodged any complaint to the police.  At the time of accident he was driving the said vehicle who is having LMV Driving License.  Immediately after the accident, he intimated the same to the OP to survey the vehicle about the damages.  After the intimation, surveyor of the company came to the place of accident and conducted spot survey about the damages sustained and reported to the same to OP.  The complainant brought the said vehicle to the Bangalore Car Tinkering and Spray Painting Works, New Santhe Maidan, Chitradurga to repair the same.  The service men of the said garage got estimated the damages and issued a quotation to the complainant on 18.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.78,600/-.  Again the surveyor of the OP came to the said garage and got estimated the damages caused to the said vehicle and reported the same to the OP.  It is further submitted that, he has no source of income to invest such huge amount to get repair the vehicle, he immediately submitted the claim form to the OP for settlement.  But the OP issued a letter dated 28.08.2014 repudiating the claim of the claim on the ground that, complainant has no valid DL at the time of accident even though he had a license to drive the LMV.  Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP so, he sustained financial loss and mental agony and etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

        3. On service of notice, OP has appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate and filed written version and denied the contents of para 1 to 6 of the complaint and the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as required under the C.P Act.  It is further stated that, OP company has issued goods carrying vehicle package Policy to the TATA ACE bearing No.KA-16/B-4639 for the period from 14.11.2013 to 13.11.2014 in the name of complainant and the said policy covers own damage for an amount of Rs.2,35,150/- i.e., IDV and also covers the risk of one WC employee i.e., paid driver, compulsory PA to owner cum driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the said policy was in force for the terms and conditions of the policy and MV Act and confirmation of 64 VB.  It is submitted that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 11.07.2014 at Jogihalli village, Hiriyur Taluk and the complainant intimated the same on the same day at about 3-15 PM to the OP and the OP appointed a surveyor by name D.V. Sanjay for conducting final survey, who conducted survey and sent a report assessing damages caused to the vehicle for an amount of Rs.40,288/- after deducting Rs.1,000/- towards salvage and Rs.500/- towards policy excess clause.  It is further submitted that, OP has issued notice to the driver cum owner to produce DL on 23.07.2014 and 14.08.2014 through RPAD and the complainant has given DL No.K-16-20140003716 which was issued in favour of him by the Chitradurga RTO and after verification of the same, it is noticed that, it is not valid to drive the insured vehicle which was a light goods vehicle and the complainant was having DL to drive LMV (NT).  As on the date of accident, the complainant has not possessed driving license to drive light goods vehicle which is violation of MV Act of Sec.3, 8 and 9 and also violated general exception 3(b) of the policy which may be noted as "being driven by or is for the purpose of being driven by him in the change of any person other than a driver as stated in the driver's clause".  After scrutinizing the papers and the DL, the OP company repudiated the claim of the complainant on 28.08.2014 stating that, on going through the driving license of the driver who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident, it was confirmed that, DL is not valid to drive light goods vehicle.  As per MV Act (a) no person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place, unless he holds an effective and valid driving license issued to him authorizing to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section (2) of Sec.75, unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so.  As per policy schedule under driver clause "any person including the insured provides that a person holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and he is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license.  Provided also that the person holding an effective learners license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989".  In view of the above stated facts for breach of drivers clause of the motor insurance policy, OP has rightly repudiated the claim and etc., and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

        4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and got marked Ex A-1 to A-4.

 

        5. OP has examined one Sri. H.V. Guruprasad, Deputy Manager (Legal), RGIC as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and got marked Ex B-1 to B-4.  

 

        6. Both the sides have filed written arguments and oral arguments also heard.

 

7. Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, he is the owner and RC holder of TATA ACE bearing No  KA-16-A-4639 and it was duly insured with the OP and on 11.07.2014 at Jogihalli village in Hiriyur Taluk it was met with the accident and sustained damages and OP has illegally repudiated the claim and thereby complainant has sustained financial loss and mental agony and OP has committed deficiency of service and entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

       9. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant is the owner and RC holder of said vehicle and it was duly insured with the OP under policy No.1406532334002676 and it was in force for the period from 14.11.2013 to 13.11.2014 and this accident was occurred on 11.07.2014.  So, as on the date of accident, insurance policy was in force.  It is the main contentions of the complainant that, on 11.07.2014 when he was driving the said vehicle at Jogihalli village in Hiriyur taluk, it was met with an accident and vehicle was damaged.  Complainant has informed the same to OP and made a claim and in spite of policy was in force, OP has repudiated the claim on the ground that,  complainant had a DL to drive light motor vehicle which is violation of MV Act condition of Sec. 3, 8 and 9 and also violated general exception 3(b) of the policy and thereby he sustained financial loss and mental agony and OP has committed deficiency of service so, this complaint has been filed. 

 

       10.  In support of his contentions,  complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also riled on documents like copy of letter dated 28.08.2014 marked as Ex.A-1 and wherein it has been stated that, As per MV Act (a) no person shall drive a motor vehicle in a public place, unless he holds an effective and valid driving license issued to him authorizing to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section (2) of Sec.75, unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so.  As per policy schedule under driver clause "any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and he is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license.  Provided also that the person holding an effective learners license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989".  In view of the above stated facts for breach of drivers clause of the motor insurance policy, OP has rightly repudiated the claim.  Quotation issued by the Bangalore Car Tinkering and spray painting works is marked as Ex.A-2 which is estimated at Rs.78,600/-.  Copy of DL marked as Ex.A-3 and it is standing in the name of complainant which is valid up to 05.06.2034 (NT)  and he has a right to drive Light Motor Vehicles only but not the light goods vehicle.  Copy of certificate of registration standing in the name of complainant which is valid up to 04.12.2014.      

 

       11.  On the other hand, it is admitted that, complainant is the owner of said vehicle and it was duly insured with the OP and policy was in force as on the date of accident.  It is the main contentions of the OP that, even though insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident, but the complainant has no valid DL to drive the LGV and he has a DL to drive LMV only and so, complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy so, OP has rightly repudiated the claim and complaint itself is not maintainable etc., and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

       12.  In support of its contentions, OP has relied on the certified copy of the claim form, which is marked as Ex.B-1, Ex.B-2 is the survey report, Ex.B-3 is the document request letter dated 14.08.2014 and Ex.B-4 is the letter dated 28.08.2014 issued by the OP company.   It is also not in dispute that, OP has appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss and submitted the report and asked to produce DL.  After verification of the DL, it was noticed that, the DL produced by the complainant was a DL to drive only LMV but, not the LGV.

 

       13.  On the basis of the above said affidavit and documentary evidences, Sri. K.S. Lokesh, Advocate for the complainant has argued that, admittedly complainant is the owner and RC holder and said vehicle was duly insured with the OP and even though policy was in force as on the date of accident and OP has illegally repudiated the claim and thereby committed deficiency of service and complainant is entitled for the relief etc., and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

14.  On the other hand, Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for the OP has strongly resisted the said contentions stating that, as per the terms and conditions of the DL, complainant was expected to drive LMV.   However, he had a valid permit to run LMV but, the vehicle which was met with an accident in question is Light Goods Vehicle and so, complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the DL and also the insurance policy and so, claim of the complainant is not maintainable and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

 

15.  In support of his contentions, Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate for OP has relied on the decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4558 wherein it has been held as under:

 

       Zonal Manager, IFFCO – Tokio Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. K.N. Parameshwaraiah and another.

 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, – Sections 173(1) – Accident claim – Judgment and Award – Appeal by the Insurance Company – Involvement of goods transport vehicle in the accident – Driver holding license to drive the Light Motor vehicle – Legality of the award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability on the Insurance Company – HELD.

 

1. Admittedly, the vehicle involved is a goods transport vehicle.  Similarly, on perusal of Ex.R-2, it is seen that, it is license issued to drive the Light Motor vehicle in particular and not the transport vehicle.  It is further seen that, on perusal of the registration certificate of the vehicle, marked as Ex.R-1, the description of the vehicle is mentioned as Light motor vehicle transport. 

 

2. With regard to the aspect of liability, further it is seen that, when once Insurance Company has discharged its burden of proving that the driver held license only to drive the non-transport vehicle, burden shifts upon the driver did possess license other than Ex.R-2 to drive the transport vehicle, but, neither the claimant nor the owner of the vehicle produced any material to discharge their burden.  In the circumstances, the contention of the Insurance Company that the driver was not having valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle will have to be accepted and in such event, the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner does not arise at all.  

     

and another decision I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) of Hon'ble Supreme Court Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prabhu Lal.  We perused the above said decisions.

 

16.  He also relied on the copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in MFA. No.21079/2009 C/w MFA Crob No.745/2009(MV) dated 08.11.2013.  The facts and circumstances of the case are aptly applicable to the present case on hand. 

 

17.  On hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and on careful perusal of the entire records, it clearly shows that, OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Admittedly, complainant is the owner of said vehicle and it was duly insured with the OP and the policy was in force as on the date  of accident.  OP has appointed Surveyor and who assessed the loss and submitted the report.  According to the counsel for the OP, complainant had no valid permit to run LGV.  So, complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the DL and also insurance policy and so, OP has rightly repudiated the claim and complaint itself is not maintainable and he is not entitled for any relief. 

 

18.  On hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and on perusal of DL, it shows complainant had a valid DL to drive LMV only but, not the LGV. So, LMV is different from LGV.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents produced by both the parties, we come to the conclusion that, complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the OP.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.

 

        19.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following.

 

ORDER

        It is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.

       

                No order as to costs.

 

(This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 27/08/2015 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)         

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1 Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

                                                -Nil-

 On behalf of OP Sri. H.V. Guruprasad, Deputy Manager (Legal), RGIC as DW-1 by filing affidavit.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of repudiation letter dated 28.08.2014 issued by OP
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of Quotation issued by Bangalore Car Tinkering and Spray Painting Works, Chitradurga.
03	Ex-A-3:-	Copy of DL
04	Ex-A-4:-	Copy of Certificate of Registration

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Copy of claim form
02	Ex-B-2:-	Survey report
03	Ex-B-3:-	Document Request Letter dated 14.08.2014
04	Ex-B-4:-	Copy of repudiation letter dated 28.08.2014 issued by OP

 

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Rhr.