PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

                                SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A.,B.L., MEMBER.

          SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

                                Friday, the 20^th day of June 2008.

C.C. No.  25 /2008.

                        .……Petitioner /Complainant.

Vs

                                         ..….…Respondent.

This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri            M. Sainiranjan Babu, Advocate for complainant and Sri. K. Murali, Advocate for Respondent, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

       Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

       The Complainant was the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. AP04 V 4095 insured with the Respondent company under the policy No. 432706/31/2007/2527 with validity period from 16-1-2007 to 15-1-2008 covering the risk of own damages to the lorry in case of accident.  On  26-6-2007 around 5:00 AM the lorry with Mango load was going to Gujarat from Rayachoty.  When the lorry reached near Yanadi Colony it met with an accident causing damage to the lorry and the driver sustained injuries.  It was not useful to run on the roads.  C.K. Dinne Police had registered a case as crime No. 69/2007.  The Complainant lodged the claim for damages with the Respondent under claim No. 432706/31/2008/58 and submitted all the documents.  The Respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver had no effective valid driving license at the time of accident by way of letter dated 24-9-2007.  The Complainant was entitled to Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of realization along with costs.  There was deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the Respondent.

       The Respondent filed a counter admitting that the Complainant insured the lorry with the Respondent.  The policy conditions were the vehicle should be driven by a person who was authorized to drive the class of vehicle by competent authority which was insured by the Respondent.  The driver at the time of accident did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle.  The Complainant never disputed that the driver had no valid and effective driving license.  The Complainant allowed the lorry driven by driver who had no valid and effective driving license.  Therefore the claim of the Complainant was repudiated.  The company was not liable to compensate any damages.  There was no calculation in claiming Rs.1,80,000/- as damages by the Complainant.  Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.  

       On the basis of above pleading the points for consideration are:

          (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the

   Respondent?

          (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

          (iii) To what relief?

       On behalf of the petitioner Ex.A-1 to A-4 were marked and on behalf of the Respondent Ex.B-1 to B-5 were marked.

       Point No.1 & 2:   The Complainant was the owner of a lorry bearing No. AP04 V 4095 insured with Respondent company under policy No. 432706/31/2007/2527 with validity period from 16-1-2007 to 15-1-2008.  The policy covered the risk of own damages of the lorry in case of accident. Ex.B-5 was the copy of policy.  On 26-6-2007 around 5:00 AM the lorry with a load of Mangos was going to Gujarat from Rayachoty.  When the lorry reached near Yanadi Colony it met with an accident causing heavy damage to the vehicle and the driver of the lorry sustained injuries.  The lorry was not useful to run on the roads.  The C.K. Dinne Police registered a case as Crime No. 69/07 u/s 337 of I.P.C.  The X/c of the FIR was Ex.A-1.  The Complainant filed Ex.A-4 the driver license issued by RTA, Kadapa.  The driver of the accident vehicle was one V. Jainulla.  He had a license to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle and Light Motor Vehicle with validity period up to 1-6-2007.  The same driving license was renewed by the same driver on 5-7-2007 with validity period till 4-7-2010.  The old license and renewed license was the X/c of Ex.A-3. Subsequent to the accident the Complainant preferred a claim to the Respondent for damages and the same was repudiated by the company vide a letter dated 24-9-2007 under Ex.A-2 on the ground that the driver V. Jainunlla did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.

       The Respondent filed Ex.B-1 X/c of driving license issued by RTA, Kadapa which was same to Ex.A-4.  After the accident the surveyor was appointed by name B.A. Samad Khan who submitted the report assessing the loss as Rs.73,500/-.  The X/c of report was Ex.B-2 dated 2-8-2007.  Earlier to it another surveyor by name Radha Krishna Murthy submitted spot survey report.  The X/c of report was Ex.B-3 dated 15-7-2007.  Ex.B-4 was X/c of Motor Claim Form submitted by the Complainant.

       The Respondent relied on 2008 ACJ 627 = I 2008 CPJ 1 (SC) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Prabhu Lal.  It was held that driver holding driving license to ply LMV is not entitled to ply HMV/Transport Vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement and Complainant is not entitled to compensation.  In the present case on hand the driving license to driver under license No. DLEAP 004220452004 was issued on 25-10-2004 for Heavy Transport Vehicle with validity period till 1-6-2007. As per Ex.A-4, it was renewed under license No. DLRAP 00496812007 on 5-7-2007 to Non-Transport LMV with validity period up to 27-5-2023 and Transport Vehicle with validity period till 4-7-2010 to Heavy Transport Vehicle and Light Motor Vehicle.  The accident occurred on 26-6-2007.  By that date of accident the license was not inforce and it was expired.  Therefore the driver had no valid and effective driving license as on date of the accident.  In case renewal of the license it would not give any retrospective effect to the license and it would not cure any fatelity of original license.  Therefore in view of the above discussion there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent.  The Complainant is not entitled to any relief.                  

9.       Point No.3:          In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

          Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 20^th June 2008.

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

                                                        For Respondent : Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:   

         X/c of FIR dated 26-6-2007 issued by C.K. Dinne Police

         Repudiation letter dated 24-9-2007 issued by the Respondent to the Complainant

         X/c of the Old License and Renewed License

         The driver license issued by RTA, Kadapa

Exhibits marked for Respondent:                      

         X/c of driving license issued by RTA, Kadapa

         X/c of Motor Survey Final Report issued by B.A. Samad Khan,

         X/c of Motor Survey Spot Report issued by Y. Radha Krishna

         X/c of Motor Claim Form submitted by the Complainant

         Copy of policy

                                  MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

     1) Sri. M. Sainiranjan Babu, Advocate, Kadapa

                   2) Sri. K. Murali, Advocate, Kadapa

1) Copy was made ready on              :

2)     Copy was dispatched on               :

3)      Copy was delivered to parties       :

V.R.V.                                      - - -