IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of November, 2017
Filed on 16.05.2015
Present
Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.152/2015
between
Complainants:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sushin Samuel 1. The Branch Manager
S/o John Samuel United India Insurance Co.Ltd
Kuzhiyil House Branch office, Charummoodu
Pallickal East Alappuzha
Thekkekkara.P.O (Adv.T.S.Suresh)
Mavelikkara, Alappuzha 2. The Branch Manager
(Adv. Rajendra Prasad) United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Divisional Office
Kizhakkedathu Building
11nd Floor, Pathanamthitta
3. General Manager, M.K. Motors
Malankara Woods
Channanikadu.P.O
Channanikadu, Kottayam
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is the absolute owner in possession of TATA Sumo Grand bearing Register No.KL-31-D-1217. He insured the said TATA Sumo in the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party issued the insurance policy having number is 101787/31/14/01/00000345 and the period of the policy from 17.04.2014 to 16.04.2015. The said vehicle is purchased by the complainant for his livelihood. The said TATA Sumo involved in an accident on 15/5/2014 at Valakam, kottarakkara. The said accident was duly informed to the police station at Kottarakara. Subsequently the said accident was informed by the complainant to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The complainant brought the vehicle to 3rd opposite party, authorized service centre and dealer of the TATA Motors with the consent of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. More over the 1st opposite party had given an approval to the complainant and 3rd opposite party for repairs and replacement of the parts of the vehicle. It is submitted that the 3rd opposite party repaired the vehicle and issued a bill an amount of Rs. 2,00,921/- on 27/8/2014. The complainant contacted the 1st opposite party for clearing the said amount, which is due to the 3rd opposite party and releasing the vehicle. But the 1st opposite party was refused to hand over the said bill amount to the 3rd opposite party till date. Then the complainant approached 2nd opposite party to release the said amount, but all are in vain. Instead of paying the bill amount, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties stated that the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving license at the time of accident. In fact, the driver of the vehicle is the father of the complainant and he has valid driving license at the time of the accident. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that the opposite party issued a package policy with respect to car No.KL-31-D-127 owned by the complainant vide Policy No. 101787/31/140100000345 with effect from 17/4/2014 to 16/4/2015 and the ID value under the policy is Rs. 4,00,000/-. The nonpayment of the eligible amount is only for the reason that the driving license of the Driver K.P.Samual is not valid at the time of alleged accident. On a verification of the driving license of the driver(Sri. K.P.Samuel) it shows that the driver was holding license with effect from 15/5/2014 and it is not valid at the time of accident on 15/5/2014, 5.30 am. Hence company send a letter to the complainant produce driving License prior to 15/5/2014. The complainant is not turn up hence the claim was not settled. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant the Power of attorney was examined as PW1 documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A7. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 series. The Survey report produced and marked as Ext.B2. AMVI was examined as CW1 the documents produced marked as Ext.X1
4. The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that opposite party issued package policy with respect to the car reg.No. KL-31-D-127 owned by the complainant. According to the complainant the vehicle involved in an accident on 15/5/2014 and the accident was informed to the police station and opposite party. The 3rd opposite party repaired the vehicle and issued a bill for an amount of Rs. 2,00,921/- the main allegation of the complaint is that even though he approached the 2nd opposite party to release the said amount, the 1st and 2nd opposite party stated that the driver of the vehicle has no valid driving license at the time of accident. Power of attorney holder of the complainant is the driver of the said car the driving license produced before the Forum and it marked as Ext.A4 on going through the Ext.A4 it seen that the driving license issued at 14/7/1972 and it valid from 15/5/2014 to 14/5/19. The accident was on 15/5/2014. Hence the opposite party wants to produce driving license prior to 15/5/2014. At the instant case of the complainant notice was issued against the Joint RTO, Mavelikara to produce the driving license particulars of the K.P. Samuel the AMVI was examined as CW1 the driving license particulars of K.P.Samuel produce marked as Ext.X1. On going through Ext.X1 we came to see that under the title renewal details of license it is stated that old NTV Validity from 15/12/2009 to 14/12/2014 and Old TV Validity from 15/12/2009 to 14/12/2012. So it is clear that his driving license to drive Transport Vehicle expired on 14/12/2012 and Non Transport Vehicle expired only on 14/12/2014, the accident was on 15/5/2014, so the point to be considered whether the vehicle involved in the accident coming under the category of NTV. The complainant produced the Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011 where in Hon’be Supreme Court opined that if driver held license to drive Light Motor Vehicle he can drive Transport Vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. In the Judgment also stated that “A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, “unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500kg or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. In the instant case The class of the vehicle L.M.V- Motor cab described in Ext.A1 certificate of fitness is the unlade weight of the vehicle is 1940kg. Since the driver of the vehicle has licence to NTV valid during the period from 15/12/2009 to 14/12/2014 the driver has licence at the time of accident that on 15/5/14 at 5.30AM to drive this vehicle. Hence we are of opinion that opposite party has no right to repudiate the claim of the complainant stating that the licence of the driver has not valid at the time of alleged accident.
According to the complainant 3rd opposite party repaired the vehicle and issued the bill for an amount of Rs. 2,00,921/-. The bill issued by the 3rd opposite party produced and it marked as Ext.A6. But opposite party stated that on getting own damage claim from the complainant they deputed the qualified surveyor and he submitted a survey report. The said survey report also produced by the opposite party and it marked as Ext.B2. As per survey report the total amount payable Rs. 1,51,640/-. Since the survey report is authenticated document we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the said amount from the opposite party
In the result the complaint is allowed. Opposite party 1 -2 are directed to pay Rs. 1,51,640/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty one thousand Six hundred and forty only)within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an amount will carry interest at 8% from the date of complaint till realization. Opposite parties further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant it is primary relief allowed no further amount to compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2017.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D.(Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainants:-
PW1 - K. John Samual
Ext.A1 - Copy of RC Book
Ext.A2 - Copy of Tax invoice 31/10/2011
Ext.A3 - Copy of Insurance policy Schedule
Ext.A4 - Copy of Licence Detail
Ext.A5 - Lok Adalath details
Ext.A6 - Copy of Tax invoice details
Ext.A7 - Special Power of attorney
Ext.C1 - Bijulal.G
Ext.X1 - Driving Licence particulars
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of Motor Claim form
Ext.B2 - Survey Report.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-
