Karnataka

Gadag

CC/33/2014

Manjunath R. Gunjal R/o Ganjigatti Tq Shiggav Dist-Haveri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Branch Office, Gadag & others - Opp.Party(s)

N.B. Ullagaddi

03 Sep 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is the owner of TATA ACE HT BS III lights goods vehicle bearing Registered No.KA-27/A-9053 in which the said vehicle carrying the sweet packets on 24.02.2013. The vehicle toppled down near Managuli Gaddi Lake due to rash and negligent driving of the Complainant and Police complaint was registered under the Crime No.37/2013 on the same day.

 

3.      The Complainant informed the accident to OP No.1, the OP No.1 appointed a surveyor to conduct the survey and the report was submitted. The Complainant had sent the vehicle for repair to Banashankari Automobiles, Gadag and spent Rs.1,85,595/- towards repair charges and Rs.10,000/- towards the parking charges. Further, the Complainant approached OP No.1 and requested to settle the insurance amount after filing the claim form on 19.06.2016. The OP No.1 wrote a letter to Complainant stating that the driver of the said vehicle was not having the valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Hence, the claim is repudiated.

 

4.      Further, the Complainant states that he holds a valid licence at the time of accident but the Ops have not considered the claim, illegally repudiated since the OP had made deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant had prayed to order the OP to pay an amount of RS.1,85,585/- being the repair charges and Rs.10,000/- towards parking charges along with the interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.15,000/- as a compensation for mental agony and harassment.

 

5.      The predecessor on the seat, received the Complaint and case was registered and notice was ordered by the predecessor on the seat. After service of the notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed their written version.

Brief facts of the Written Version of OPs:

The OP NO.1 to 3 submits that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is false and not tenable in law and further Ops partly accepted the contents of the Complaint and denied that Complainant had not spent the amount of Rs.1,85,595/- towards the repairs of the said vehicle. Ops submits that the OP NO.1 is never assured the Complainant to settled the case within 15 days.

 

6.      Ops further submitted that the licence produced by the Complainant before the Forum it transpires that the Complainant was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle, because the licence issued to the Complainant is LMV (NT). Since the Complainant driven the goods vehicle. The vehicle bearing NO.KA-27/A-9053 bearing insurance policy  NO.05200031120112010000634 issued is for goods vehicle. Since the Complainant have only LMV licence, the Complainant had breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

 

7.      Further, Ops submit that since the repudiation of the claim assigning the reason that the driver on the date of accident have not possessed the valid driving licence to drive the LGV. Thus Ops have not made any deficiency in service.

 

8.      Ops further submits that if the Forum come to the conclusion that the Ops have liable to pay the compensation then liabilities of Ops restricted only to pay the loss of RS.1,72,000/- as the IRDA Surveyor assess. Hence, Ops submits that as stated above contentions the Complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs.  

 

9.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant has examined PW1 in his support of the allegation. The documents produced are:

1) EX P1 Complaint to Police Station,

2) EX P2 FIR,

3) EX P2 (A) signature of Police Inspector,

4) EX P3 Motor Vehicle accident Report,

5) EX P3 (A) Signature of Police Sub Inspector,

6) EX P4 Repudiation Letter,

7) EX P5 Postal Acknowledgement and Postal Receipt,

8)  EX P6 Application from Complainant to R.T.O.

7) EX P7 Registered Extract,

8) EX P8 Original Bill.

These documents have been marked as EX P1 to P8 in the defence of the Complainant. On the other hand, OPs filed the Chief Affidavit of one Sri.Shrinivasa, Branch Manager of Gadag and filed 06 documents and marked as EX OP1 to OP5 and they are as follows:

            EX OP1 Letter Repudiation of Claim,

EX OP2 Acknowledgement,

EX OP3 Extract of Driving Licence,

EX OP4 IRDA Survey Report

EX OP5 Licence Copy,

 

 

           10.      This being the pleadings, the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:

 

1.	Whether the Complainant proves that he hold a valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle at the time of accident?
2.   3.	Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as sought?   What Order?

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Negative,

Point No.2 – Negative,

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

 

11.    On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:

R E A S O N S

 12.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  On perusal of the documents on record, it is found that it is a specific case of the Complainant that the Ops have repudiated the claim mentioning that at the time of accident the driver driving the insured vehicle was not having valid driving licence.

 

13.         The Complainant owns a vehicle TATA ACE a goods vehicle bearing NO.KA-27/A-9054 toppled on the way from Gadag to Vijayapur carrying the sweet packet on 24.02.2013. The Complainant was driving the vehicle on a hire basis, the Complainant in his Complaint stated that accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver and the vehicle was damaged. The same had been got repaired in Banashankari Automobiles at Gadag. The repair bill was to the extent of Rs.1,85,595/- and parking charges of Rs.10,000/- which had been paid by the Complainant. The Complainant submitted that the claim form has submitted to OP, the OP repudiated the claim stating that the driver does not holds valid driving licence hence the claim had been repudiated.

 

14.         The OP had objected that the Complainant does not holds a valid driving licence to drive the transport licence and the OP witnesses the RTO who issued the licence for the Complainant, the RTO was present before the Forum and submitted that the licence issued to the Complainant bearing licence No.KA-26/20120033387 is issued only to drive LMV-NT-CAR or Motor cycle with gear (non-transport). On verification of documents on record, the driving licence itself transpires that the Complainant holds a licence to drive only a light motor vehicle non-transport (NT).

 

15.         The registered extract of the vehicle in question produced before the Forum discloses that it is a light goods vehicle. Hence, we are in a view that licence issued to the Complainant is not a licence to drive a goods vehicle and transport vehicle, holding a LMV licence and driving a transport vehicle (goods) is a breach of condition of the insurance policy.

 

16.         Hence, repudiation of the claim is lawful, such being the fact Complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence, we answer the point No.1 and 2 in negative. We relied upon citations as below:

1) III (2014) CPJ 41 (Goa) Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (Casa Bhat & Ors. V/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.)

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 21 (b) – Insurance – Accident of vehicle – Driving licence invalid – Violation of conditions of policy – Surveyor appointed – Claim repudiated – Alleged deficiency in service – District Forum dismissed Complaint – Hence appeal – Vehicle involved is a light commercial vehicle i.e. a transport vehicle- Tests are more stringent, to obtain licence to drive transport vehicle that non-transport vehicle – Complainant’s driver had only a licence to drive light motor vehicle – Ordinary licence to drive LMV not valid – Repudiation justified.”  

 

2) I (2015) CPJ 605 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Ishwar Singh V/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another. It reads as follows:

                            “Consumer Protection Act,1986 – Sections (2) (1) (g), 21 (b) – Insurance – Accident of vehicle – Overloading – Driving licence invalid – Claim repudiated – Alleged deficiency in service – District Forum allowed Complaint – State Commission allowed appeal – Hence revision – Repudiation letter by itself is not a sine qua non dispute between parties – Petitioner has failed to show anything to suggest that driver of vehicle at relevant time was holding valid driving licence – Violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy – Repudiation justified – State Commission’s order is in consonance with powers of Appellate Court while hearing the appeal from original decree.”

  17.  POINT NO.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is hereby dismissed. No order on costs.

 

2.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 03^rd day of September, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President