Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

          The complainant filed this complaint under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking payment of Rs.1,75,000/- being the amount spent towards repairs of his tractor-trailer; Rs.50,000/- as damages and compensation; Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.7,000/- towards traveling charges and incidental expenses and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint.   

2.      In brief the complaint averments are hereunder:

          The complainant is registered owner of the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP07TU8876 & 8877.  The complainant insured the said tractor with the opposite party vide the policy bearing No.62100231110100000408 covering the period from 02-05-11 to  01-05-12.   The complainant in order to cultivate his land in Nalgonda District appointed one Nagaiah son of Hanumaiah as tractor driver in Nalgonda district.   The said Nagaiah had valid driving license.   The complainant and the said Nagaiah while coming on the said tractor from Nalgonda to Vangipuram it turned turtle and fell into Nagarjuna Sagar left canal.  The complainant and the said Nagaiah jumped and saved their lives.   The complainant immediately informed about the accident to the opposite party who inturn appointed a surveyor.  The surveyor appointed by the opposite party visited the spot, assessed the damage and submitted a report to the opposite party.  The complainant’s tractor was badly damaged and submitted estimated bill for Rs.1,75,000/- to the opposite party along with claim form and necessary documents.   The complainant thereafter got the vehicle repaired and submitted original bills to the opposite party. The opposite party on 14-06-12 informed the complainant that the claim was repudiated alleging that the driver namely              V. Nagesh had no valid and effective driving license.   The complainant is not aware who that Nagesh is.  The attitude of the opposite party is most negligent and amounted to deficiency of service.  The complainant incurred Rs.7,000/- for his visits to the office of the opposite party.   The complainant suffered a lot of mental agony.  The complainant estimated the same at Rs.50,000/-.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.  The opposite party filed counter and its contents in brief are hereunder:

          The complainant approached this Forum by suppressing material facts.  The opposite party immediately appointed surveyors Mohan Rao, Venkata Reddy and Srinivasa Rao after knowing the accident.  The complainant did not inform the accident to police. The complainant in his claim form mentioned that one V. Nagesh was driving the tractor-trailer.   On verification the opposite party found that the said Nagesh did not possess valid and effective driving license.  Basing on the reports the opposite party repudiated the claim.  Involvement of complainant’s tractor-trailer is doubtful as no crime was registered.   The Tractor-trailer is not having proper permit as per the paper submitted by the complainant and thus violated policy conditions.  The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service as rightly repudiated the claim.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.      Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.B1 to B-9 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite party respectively.

5.      Now the points for consideration in this case are these:

1. Whether the opposite party repudiating complainant’s claim is not justifiable and if so amounted to deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.      Admitted facts in this case are these:

 a. The complainant insured his tractor with the opposite party                 covering the period from 02-05-11 to 01-05-12 (Ex.A-1=B1).

 b. The complainant submitted claim forms to the opposite party.

 c. The opposite party repudiated the claim on 14-06-12                         (Ex.A-3=B8)

 d. The opposite party did not inform to the police about the          accident.

7.  POINT No.1:-    In Ex.A-3 (=B-8) the opposite party while repudiating the claim mentioned that the driver at the time of accident Mr. V. Nagesh did not possess valid driving license.   The complainant for the reasons best known to him did not inform about the accident to the police. 

8.      The learned counsel for the opposite party relied on the decisions reported in 2008 (1) CPJ 1 (SC); 2012 (4) CPJ 68 (NC) and                         2012 (1) CPJ 511 (NC).  In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Prabhu Lal 2008 (1) CPJ 1 (SC) it was held that a driver holding driving license to ply light motor vehicle (LMV) is not entitled to ply heavy motor vehicle (HMV)/transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement and under those circumstances insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation.  

9.      In Ankhit Goel vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another 2012 (1) CPJ 511 (NC) it was held that a transport vehicle may be a LMV but to drive it a distinct license is required/to be obtained.  

10.    In Amal Sai and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another 2012 (4) CPJ 68 (NC) it was held that a person holding driving license of light vehicle was not authorized to drive tractor.        

11.    The entire controversy between the complainant and opposite party is regarding the person driving the tractor at the time of accident.   According to complainant one Nagaiah son of Hanumaiah was driving the ill-fated tractor at the time of accident.  The complainant in Ex.A-2 representation dated 29-01-12 made to the opposite party did not mention the driver’s name.   But in Ex.B-2 representation dated 29-01-12 said to have been given by the complainant, driver’s name was mentioned as V. Nagesh s/o Venkulu.  Neither the complainant nor the opposite party filed affidavit of the scribe of original representation be it Ex.A-2 or B-2.   The complainant by not giving report to police regarding accident denied a genuine opportunity to the opposite party to ascertain the manner of the accident. 

12.    The opposite party filed copy of claim form said to have been given by the complainant and it was marked as Ex.B-3.   Part -3 of Ex.A-3 dealt with the particulars of driver.   At that place it was mentioned that one V. Nagesh s/o Venkulu aged 20 years residing in house No.42 of Dorepalli and his driving license number as DLFAP024122532008.   Ex.B-7 is copy of driving particulars of Nagesh V.  The contention of the complainant that he did not mention the name of driver as V. Nagesh cannot be accepted in view of recitals in Ex.B-3 that too in the absence of police report and non mentioning driver’s name in Ex.A-2.  The said Nagesh had non-transport driving license for AR, LMV, MCWG, T&T, valid upto 28-05-2028 and transport driving license for motor cab valid upto 04-10-12.  

13.    In Ex. A-1 (=B1) at the column persons or classes of persons entitled to drive  it was mentioned “Any person including the insured provided that a person holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license.   Provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989”.  

14.    Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with Form and contents of licenses to drive and it reads as follows:

1). Every learner’s license and driving license except a driving license issued under section 18 shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the   Central Government.

2) A learner’s license or as the case may be, driving license shall        also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor        vehicle of one or more of the following classes namely:

a) motor cycle without gear;

b) motor cycle with gear;

c) invalid carriage;

d) light motor vehicle;

e) medium goods vehicle;

f) medium passenger motor vehicle;

g) heavy goods vehicle;

h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;

i) road- roller;

j) motor vehicle of a specified description.

15.    Ex.A4 is the driving license particulars of Nagaiah R wherein it was mentioned that the said Nagaiah had non transport license for AR, LMV, MCWG, T&T valid upto 11-03-19 and transport license for AR, HTV, motor cab, T&T valid upto 16-06-12.   Ex.A-4 revealed that separate licenses are being given for tractor-trailer under the categories of non transport and transport.   As already observed the contention of the complainant that the ill-fated tractor was being driven by Nagaiah.R cannot be accepted for not mentioning his name in Ex.A-2 and absence of report to police regarding accident. 

16.    The contention of the opposite party about the ill-fated tractor being driven by one V. Nagesh is more reliable as his name found place in Ex.B-3 claim form.  The said Nagesh had non-transport driving license for tractor and trailer.   Taking a clue from the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the said Nagesh had no valid driving license at the time of accident and as such the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is justifiable.   We therefore hold that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and answer this point against the complainant. 

17.  POINT No.2:-   In view of above findings the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

18.  POINT No.3:-  In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2013.

          MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For opposite party:     

          PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.