CC Filed on 21.07.2007<br /> Disposed on 21.02.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated 21.02.2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.145/2007<br /> <br /> Sri. Gangappa,<br /> S/o Yarrappa,<br /> Aged about 60 years,<br /> Seemannagaripalli Village,<br /> Somanathapura Post,<br /> Pathapalya Hobli,<br /> Bagepalli Taluk,<br /> Kolar District. Complainant <br /> (By Advocate Sri. H.S.Prasannakumar)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,<br /> Branch Office ,<br /> S.B.L.T. Building,<br /> Polytechnic Road,<br /> Chintamani Town,<br /> Kolar District. Opposite Party<br /> (By Advocate Sri. L.N.Ramanatha) <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,101/- with interest at 18% per annum and costs etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of the case of complainant may be stated as follows: That the complainant is the RC owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-40 T-3218 and KA-40 T-3219 respectively. The tractor and trailer was in road worthy condition and very well maintained and was being used for agricultural purpose. The complainant had insured the said tractor and trailer with the opposite party vide policy No.071502/47/05/00834 valid from 24.06.2005 to 23.06.2006. This was a package policy even covering the risk of own damage to the vehicle to an extant of Rs.3,59,500/-. The premium paid was Rs.4,702/-. <br /> <br /> That on 04.02.2006 at about 10.00 p.m. at Gudipalli village on Pathapalya – Jupalya road the tractor with empty trailer was driven by R.Rangappa S/o Ramappa and it went off the road due to mechanical defect and capsized into a deep ditch. The police registered a case in Cr. No.1/2006 and later filed charge sheet against the driver. Due to the accident the vehicle was extensively damaged. The complainant spent Rs.1,45,101/- towards repair of tractor and trailer. Complainant intimated the accident to opposite party and Sri. Venugopal an authorized damage assessor inspected the vehicle at the instance of opposite party and submitted the survey report. It is alleged that by letter dated 13.12.2006 the opposite party repudiated the claim which is unjust and illegal, thereby the opposite party committed deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party admitted the issue of insurance policy and the occurrence of the accident. It admitted the appointment of surveyor. The surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.1,03,215/- after inspection. It contended that the driver R.Rangappa was not having valid and effective license to drive the tractor and trailer at the time of accident, thereby the complainant violated the terms of policy and no liability would arise on the opposite party. The material part of repudiation letter dated 13.12.2006 states as fallows: “We are closing your claim file on account of the following reason- The driver Rangappa is authorized to drive only tractor without trailer attached. Since he drove the vehicle with trailer attached in violation of the license issued by RTO, claim becomes not payable”. <br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits and relevant documents. We heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service by opposite party?<br /> 2) If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which relief the <br /> complainant is entitled to?<br /> 3) What order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the rival submissions and the records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: At the time of accident one R.Rangappa S/o Ramappa was driving the tractor and trailer, and he was having driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Tractor), which was valid from 26.07.2001 to 31.05.2006. The date of birth of Rangappa as disclosed in driving license is 01.06.1956. The driving license was issued on 26.07.2001. The RTO has issued an endorsement which is produced by opposite party, which shows that the license issued to R.Rangappa is only to drive the tractor but not for tractor attached with trailer. The driving license also shows that this license was to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle. <br /> <br /> The RC relating to the said tractor and trailer are having the following particulars: Un-laden weight of tractor 1575 Kg. Un-laden weight of trailer 1100 Kg. Gross vehicle weight of trailer is (1575 + 5920) = 7495 kgs. From the above particulars of the vehicle it is clear that the tractor attached with trailer still remains as Light Motor Vehicle. The question is whether the tractor attached with trailer is a transport vehicle or not and if it is transport vehicle, whether a specific endorsement on the license to drive such transport vehicle is necessary? <br /> <br /> During argument it is not disputed that tractor attached with trailer is a transport vehicle. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the driver was authorized to drive the tractor as per the driving license and it is unusual for an agriculturist to operate the tractor alone, therefore according to him when there is license to drive the tractor, it is deemed that he was entitled to drive the tractor with trailer. On the other hand the learned counsel for opposite party submits that a specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle is necessary as required under section 3 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and in the present case no such endorsement is made, thereby the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. <br /> <br /> The learned counsel for complainant relied upon the decision cited in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3428 between M/s Natwar Parick and Co. Lt., /s State of Karnataka and others. This decision merely shows that tractor–trailer falls under section 2(14) as ‘goods carriage’ and consequently it falls under definition ‘transport vehicle’ under section 2(47). This decision does not deal with the question whether a specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle as required under section 3 was necessary or not, but it deals with liability regarding payment of motor vehicle tax.<br /> <br /> The learned counsel for opposite party relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Prabhulal reported in 1(2008) CPJ 33(SC). Another decision cited in I(2008) CPJ 33 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pruthviraj may also be seen. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Admittedly in the present case the driver R.Rangappa was having only the driving license to drive LMV. But there was no endorsement on his license to drive any kind of transport vehicle. In view of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party it is clear that such endorsement is necessary. Therefore we hold that the repudiation of claim by opposite party is legal and valid. Accordingly we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative Point No.2 does not arise for consideration. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 21st day of February 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />