BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member, PRESIDENT (FAC)
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday the 28th day of January, 2013
C.C.No.158/2011
Between:
M.C.Virupakashaiah,
S/o M.C.Ramaiah,
H.No.1/73, S.Boyanapalle Village,
Veldurthy Mandal,
Kurnool District. …COMPALIANT
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Alankar Plaza, 3rd Floor,
Park Road,
Kurnool – 518 003.
...Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri.M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member, PRESIDENT (FAC))
C.C. No.158/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.35,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of accident i.e., 10-11-2009 till the date of realization;
- To grant a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony;
- To grant the cost of the complaint;
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 TV 0661 TATA ACE and it was insured with opposite party under policy bearing No.OG/10/1806/1812/00000033. On 10-11-2009 the said vehicle was met with an accident near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Nannur Village, Orvakal Mandal, Kurnool District. As a result the vehicle of the complainant was damaged Orvakal P.S. Registered a Case in Crime No.200/2009 Under Section 337, 279 IPC against the Trax Zeep Vehicle. The complainant informed the same to opposite party and opposite party appointed a spot surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle. The complainant got repaired his vehicle at Craftsmen Motors, TATA Authorized Service Station at Kurnool. The surveyor assessed the damages for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant submitted claim form along with all relevant documents to opposite party. On 07-12-2009 the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle possessed LMV Non Transport License at the time of accident, where as the vehicle was registered as transport vehicle. There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 TV 0661 and he insured the same with opposite party. The opposite party issued the policy bearing No.OG/10/1806/1812/00000033 cover the period from 06-04-2009 to 05-04-2010. It is admitted that the insured vehicle was met with an accident on 10-11-2009 and the complainant intimated the same to opposite party. The opposite party appointed a surveyor the said surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.30,000/-. The complainant submitted the claim form to opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim on 07-12-2009 on the ground that the said vehicle was a commercial vehicle and that Sri.B.Sreenivasulu the driver of the said vehicle holding Non Transport (LMV) License at the time of accident. As the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also APMV Rules, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the party of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A10 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP21 TV 0661. The photo copy of registration certificate dated 13-04-2009 is marked as Ex.A3. He insured his vehicle with opposite party under Ex.B1. The said policy was in force from 06-04-2009 to 05-04-2010. Admittedly the accident took place on 10-11-2009. A copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.200/2009, Orvakal P.S., Kurnool District is marked as Ex.A4. Admittedly after intimation insurance surveyor was appointed by opposite party and the said surveyor assessed the loss and filed his survey report before opposite party which is marked as Ex.B5. It is the case of the complainant that on 10-11-2009 the insured vehicle met with accident, that after intimation the opposite party appointed a surveyor, he assessed the loss caused to the vehicle. The complainant got repaired his vehicle at Craftsmen Motors, Kurnool. The said motor service station issued estimation bill for a sum of Rs.35,000/- under Ex.A5 to Ex.A8. Ex.A9 is the Cash Bill of Rs.3,600/- issued by Enayatullah Spray Painting Works, Kurnool. The complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents but opposite party repudiated the claim under Ex.A10 = Ex.B6 dated 07-12-2009 on the ground that Sri.B.Sreenivasulu driver of the said vehicle was holding LMV Non Transport Driving License, and that the vehicle was transport vehicle. The photo copy of driving license dated 16-09-2009 is marked as Ex.A2 = Ex.B3. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid driving license for Motor Car or Jeep, TATA Trally ACHET, as the vehicle was weighting less than 7,500 Kg. In support of his contention he cited a decisions reported in I (2006) (2) ALD 4 (NC) and (2005) ACJ 1547. In the said decisions it was held that the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle as the vehicle was weighting less than 6,000 Kg and not carrying any goods at the time of accident though the vehicle was designed used as a transport vehicle or goods carrier. But in the present case the insured vehicle was carrying passengers at the time of accident.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that the vehicle of the complainant was commercial vehicle, that the driver of the complainant was holding license to drive light motor vehicle. The Driving License of said driver Sri.B.Sreenivasulu is marked as Ex.B3 (Ex.A2). The vehicle of the complainant is registered as transport vehicle. The complainant will fully handed over his vehicle to a person, who did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive commercial vehicle. It is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay damages to the complainant. In support of his contention he relied on decisions reported in Sundhya -Vs- United India Insurance Company Limited Revision Petition No.3358/2011 (Against the order dated 27-05-2011 in Appeal No.1339/2011 of the State Commission, Karnakataka) Pronounced on 30-05-2012, Ankit Goyal –Vs- The New India Assurance Company Limited Revision Petition No.3825/2011 (Against the order dated 05-09-2011 in Appeal Case No.278/2010 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh) Pronounced on 20-01-2012 and United India Insurance Company Limited –Vs- Aravind Kumar Rajak ( III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC) ).
9. In the said above decisions it is clearly held that the driver who was holding license to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) could not have plied commercial transport vehicle without there being any endorsement driving transport vehicle. In the present case the driver did not have such an endorsement in Ex.B3 = Ex.A2. In the light of the finding of Apex Court in decision reported in AIR (2006) SC 3440 we hold that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the opposite party need not to pay any amount towards damages to the complainant. The opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. No deficiency of service is found on the part of opposite party.
10. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 28th day of January, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Motor Survey Report (Final) dated 29-12-2009.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Driving License dated 16-09-2009.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Registration Certificate dated 13-04-2009.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.200/2009 issued by Orvakal
P.S. Kurnool District dated 10-11-2009.
Ex.A5 Tax Invoice of Craftsmen Motors, Kurnool dated 31-12-2009.
Ex.A6 Tax Invoice of Craftsmen Motors, Kurnool dated 31-12-2009.
Ex.A7 Cash Bill No.732 for Rs.4,124/- dated 01-01-2010 issued by
Craftsmen Motors, Kurnool.
Ex.A8 Cash Bill No.426 for Rs.370/- dated 29-12-2009 issued by
Craftsmen Motors, Kurnool.
Ex.A9 Cash Bill No.22 for Rs.3,600/- dated 20-12-2009 issued by
Enayatullah Spray Painting Works, Kurnool.
Ex.A10 Repudiation Letter dated 07-12-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.OG/10/1806/1812/00000033
along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Form 24 B-Register of Motor Vehicle along with
Permit of the insured vehicle bearing No.AP21 TV 0661.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Driving License Extract of the Owner Cum Driver
dated 16-09-2009.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of Motor Insurance Claim Form submitted by the complainant.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of Motor Final Survey Report dated 25-06-2012.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of Repudiation Letter dated 07-12-2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
