Date of filing:19.11.2011
Date of disposal:04.09.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Thursday, the 04th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.158/2011
Between:
M/s K.C.Venkata Reddy & Company,
Rep. by its Partner, K.V.Jagan Mohan Reddy,
S/o K.C.Venkata Reddy,
D.No.6-2-906, Ram Nagar,
Anantapur. … Complainant
Vs.
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Subash Road,
Anantapur. … Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri D.Shyam Prasad, Advocate for the complainant and Sri V.Krishna Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards the own damage of his vehicle and interest @18% P.A. from 26.03.2011 till the date if realization, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.8,000/- towards towing charges and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is the partner of K.C.Venkata Reddy and Company doing contracts of various types in all over Andhra Pradesh. The said company to do works in A.P. is maintaining machinery for the said purpose. The complainant is the registered owner of the tipper bearing No.AP-02-W-0536 and the same is being used for contract works. The complainant has taken an insurance policy bearing No.051000/31/10/01/00000473 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- from the opposite party and the said policy is a comprehensive policy covering the period from 12.09.2010 to 11.09.2011. Subsequently on 26.03.2011 at 7.00 P.M. when the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP-02-W-0536 left from Banaganapalli with a load of Volvo Road Roller bearing No.AP-02-AB-6180 and proceeding towards Kadiri Via Jammalamadugu at about 10.30 P.M. when the tipper reached Jesus Christ Statue on Muddanur- Jammalamadugu cross roads due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tipper lost control over the vehicle, while taking turn in the ghat road and as a result the tipper went into the lower gradient of ghat road and the driver jumped and escaped. The tipper was badly damaged in the said accident the road roller was also heavily damaged. Immediately the driver who jumped from the tipper went to Muddanur Police Station and gave a complaint to the police and a case was registered as crime No.48/2011 under section 337 and 304-A IPC. Immediately after the accident the complainant, who is the registered owner of the tipper has informed the same to the opposite party. The opposite party deputed a spot surveyor from Anantapur and the spot surveyor went to the spot on the next day i.e., 27.03.2011 and has taken photographs and has submitted the same to the opposite party. Subsequently after the spot survey the complainant i.e., owner of the tipper was allowed to lift the vehicle and road roller for repairs. The tipper was shifted to another vehicle to Vijayawada for its repairs. The tipper was taken to Durga Industries Vijayawada and the charges for shifting the tipper from the accident spot to Vijayawada was paid by the complainant. Immediately after shifting the tipper to Vijayawada, the complainant has informed the same to the opposite party and Durga Industries estimated the costs of the repairs for the said tipper and the complainant has handed over the said estimates prepared by Durga Industries to the opposite party. As per the said estimates, the repair costs of the vehicle is around Rs.15,00,000/-. The opposite party after receiving the estimates prepared by Durga Industries with regard to the repair of the tipper has appointed a surveyor for estimation of the costs of the repairs to the tipper. The surveyor has been deputed from Hyderabad who went to Vijayawadad and has assessed repair cost of the said damaged tipper and submitted his report to the opposite party. The surveyor, who assessed the loss of the tipper, has taken an acceptance letter from the complainant on 04.05.2011 to the effect that the complainant has accepted to take total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- by retaining the wreckage. Subsequently after submission of second surveyor report stating that the said vehicle was not fit for use and it is totally damaged and after prolonged negotiations with the complainant, he made the complainant to accept for Rs.3,50,000/- on salvage loss basis allowing the complaint to retain the wreckage.
3. Later the complainant has submitted the claim form as per procedure of the opposite party with relevant vehicle records including the driving licence of the driver, who drove the tipper at the time of the accident. The driver, who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident is one Ramanjulu S/o Ramudu whose licence is valid from 21.07.2008 to 20.07.2018. Subsequently to the surprise of the complainant the opposite part repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy and untenable grounds through their letter dt.25.10.2011. The first ground for repudiating the claim is that the supporting driver did not have valid driving licence and it is also stated that the driving licence alleged to have been produced by him is a fake licence and with regard to this, it is pertinent to note that the supporting driver was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. As per the conditions of the policy, it is clear that the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, should have a valid driving licence. Admittedly in this case, the person who was driving the vehicle is one Ramanjulu S/o Ramudu has got valid driving licence at the time of the accident. But unfortunately the opposite party has taken perverse view stating that the supporting driver did not have valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In fact the support driver never drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. Apart from that the supporting driver will be allowed for the tipper only in case if the driver is not in a position to drive the vehicle, he will support the said driver. But at the time of allowing the supporting driver, the owner can see only the driving licence and no owner will investigate whether the said licence is genuine or fake before appointing him as a supporting driver.
4. With regard to second ground in the repudiation at the time of accident the tipper was taking Road Roller to the work spot and there were three person sitting in the cabin i.e., driver, who is driving the tipper , supporting driver and cleaner. The fourth person admittedly was sitting in the body of the tipper, who is helper of the Road Roller. The person, who is sitting in the body of the tipper and he is the helper of the Road Roller which is also covered under Road Roller insurance, which the complainant has taken under the comprehensive policy from the same insurance company which is valid as on the date of the accident. But the insurance company has deliberately stated in the repudiation letter that the fourth person is an unauthorized passenger, which is absolutely false as the opposite party issued two policies allowing the helper of the Road Roller to go along with Road Roller, now cannot repudiate the present claim on that ground. The third ground for repudiation was that the goods vehicle was not being used for the purpose covered by the insurance policy as on the date of accident and thus violated the conditions of the policy. Further the fourth ground for the repudiation is that there are number of persons travelling in the goods vehicle at the time of the accident which contributed to the said accident. But in fact there are no unauthorized passengers at all at the time of the accident. As per the terms and conditions of the policy three persons are authorized to travel in the cabin of the tipper. The fifth ground for repudiation of the claim of the complainant is that the risk of the passengers in any form travelling in the said goods vehicle at the time of accident is not covered by insurance policy. Hence, they are repudiating the claim and the sixth ground for repudiation is that the complainant violated the permit issued by the licensing authorities. Immediately after the accident the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle and has opined that there is no mechanical defect at the time of the accident. But the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper. The complainant submitted that the complainant company was regular customer and paying Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- towards premium to the opposite party since 25 years and the complainant never made a claim unnecessarily at any point of time.
5. Counter filed on behalf of the opposite party stating that it is true that the tipper bearing No.AP-02-W-0536 is insured with the opposite party and the said policy was in force as on the date of alleged accident i.e., 26.03.2011. The further allegation that the said vehicle met with an accident while the Road Roller bearing No.AP-02-AB-6180 was being transported and both the vehicle were damaged due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper has to be proved by the complainant. The further allegation that the driver of the tipper escaped from the accident and the inmates of the said tipper sustained injuries/died is also to be proved by the complainant. The further allegation that immediately after the accident a spot survey was conducted and subsequently the second surveyor also estimated the loss and the complainant is entitled for the claim is also to be proved by the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that the allegation in the complaint that the tipper was taken to Vijayawada for effecting repairs and the complainant incurred heavy loss due to damage of the said vehicle and the estimation for repairs is Rs.15,00,000/- is highly excessive and the complainant is not entitled even for the claim made by him. Further submitted that the allegation that the complainant submitted a letter to the company on 04.05.2011 accepting to take a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- is true. The opposite party further submits that as seen from the records two persons died in the accident and the driver and the person who gave police complaint were also injured in the said accident.
6. The opposite party further submitted that as seen from the records the persons who are sitting in the cabin are unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle and travelling in the goods vehicle is strictly prohibited under the policy. Thus owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The allegation in the complaint is that three persons who were sitting in the cabin of the tipper and one person was sitting in the body of the tipper who has a helper of the Road Roller is absolutely not correct. In fact as per the records/policy only the driver and cleaner of the tipper alone are allowed and their risk is covered under the policy. As per the records no second driver is allowed to travel in the vehicle and the risk of the helper of the Road Roller is not covered under the policy in dispute. Hence the question of payment of compensation does not arise. The opposite party asked the complainant to submit the driving licence of additional driver who is said to be travelling at the time of accident but the driving licence particulars produced by the complainant was fake driving licence. Hence this opposite party is absolutely not liable to pay any compensation as if at all the person died in the accident was an additional driver he must possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. As seen from the records unauthorized passengers were travelling in the said vehicle at the time of accident which is clearly violation of the policy and permit conditions. Hence, the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant under valid grounds vide their letter dt.25.10.2011. The further allegation that the supporting driver was not driving at the time of the accident hence the complaint is entitled to compensation, though the supporting driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident is not correct. The further allegation that Road Roller which was being transported at the time of accident is also covered under the policy hence, the complainant is entitled to compensation is not correct. The opposite party further submitted that as peer the policy conditions the tipper must be used as per conditions incorporated in the policy/permit, whereas at the time of accident there is violation of permit conditions, hence the company is not liable to pay compensation. The further allegation that the over load is not the nexus to the accident is not correct. The opposite party further submitted that even the surveyor’s report cannot be accepted in total and the company has got every right to decide what is the amount payable to the complainant if at all he is entitled for any compensation. Further the opposite party submitted that as seen from the records the complainant is doing business and as commercial activities are involved in the present case hence, as per section 2 of Consumer Protection Act any commercial transactions do not come under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. The opposite party further submitted that as seen from the records there is clear violation of policy and permit conditions. Hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation and the opposite party has righty repudiated. After thorough investigation only the opposite party has righty repudiated and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B9 documents.
9. Heard both sides
10. POINT NO 1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is the partner of M/s K.C.Venkata Reddy & Company who is doing contracts in road works and also maintaining machinery for the said purpose. The complainant is the registered owner of the tipper bearing No.AP-02-W-0536 and using the same for contract works. The said tipper is insured for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- under the policy bearing No.051000/31/10/01/00000473 and the period is from 12.09.2010 to 11.09.2011. The counsel for the complainant submitted that while the said tipper was carrying a Volvo Road Roller bearing No.AP-02-AB-6180 on 26.03.2011 from Banaganapalle to Kadiri via Jammalamadugu at about 10.30 P.M. when the tipper reached Jesus Christ Statue on Muddanur- Jammalamadugu cross road due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper at high speed the driver lost control over the vehicle and as a result the tipper went into the lower gradient of ghat road but the driver jumped and escaped. The counsel for complainant submitted that in the said accident both the tipper and Road Roller were badly damaged. Immediately the driver who jumped from the tipper went to Muddanur Police Station and gave a complaint and a case was registered as crime No.48/11 under section 337 and 304(A) IPC. The counsel for the complainant submitted that immediately after the accident the complainant who is the registered owner of the tipper has informed the same to the opposite party and the opposite party has deputed a spot surveyor from Anantapur and a spot survey was conducted on the next day i.e., 27.03.2011 and the spot surveyor has taken photographs and submitted the same to the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submitted that after the spot survey the complainant was allowed to lift the tipper and Road Roller for repairs. The said tipper was taken to Durga Industries Vijayawada and the necessary charges for shifting the vehicle was born by the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.8,000/-. Then the estimate was prepared by Durga Industries and as per the estimates the repair costs was around Rs.15,00,000/-. The opposite party after receiving the estimates prepared by Durga Industries the second surveyor was deputed from Hyderabad by the opposite party and after survey by him who assessed the loss of the tipper has taken an acceptance letter from the complainant on 04.05.2011 to that effect the complainant has accepted to take total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- by retaining the wreckage.
11. Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that as the tipper got totally damaged and it was not fit for use, the second surveyor after prolonged negotiations with the complainant, he made the complainant to accept for Rs.3,50,000/- on salvage loss basis allowing the complainant to retain the wreck. Subsequently the complainant submitted the claim forms as per the procedure to the opposite party along with relevant vehicle records and driving licence of the driver who drove at the time of the accident. The counsel for the complainant submitted that one Ramanjulu S/o Ramudu was the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident and he possessed a valid driving licence valid from 21.07.2008 to 20.07.2018. The counsel for the complainant submitted that surprisingly a repudiation letter was received from the opposite party on untenable and flimsy grounds which is dt.25.10.2011 and marked as Ex.A6. The counsel for the complainant argued that as per the repudiation letter the first ground for repudiation is that the supporting driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the second ground for repudiation is that the complainant has deliberately allowed unauthorized passengers to travel in the goods vehicle by violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the third ground is that the said goods vehicle was not being used for the purpose covered by the insurance policy on the date of accident and thus violated the terms and conditions of the policy and rules framed under M.V.Act1988 and the fourth ground for the repudiation is that there were unauthorized passengers travelling in the goods vehicle which contributed to the said accident and the fifth ground is that the risk of passengers in any form travelling in the goods vehicle at the time of accident is not covered by the insurance policy issued to the complainant’s vehicle and the six ground for the repudiation is that the complainant has deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the permit issued by the licensing authority, hence they are repudiating the claim of the complainant.
12. The counsel for the complainant argued that all the above grounds taken by the opposite party are only to escape from the liability of compensation to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant argued that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident should possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. But the opposite party has taken the plea that the supporting driver was not possessing a valid driving licence and it was a fake driving licence, hence they are repudiating which is not a valid ground for repudiating. Secondly the opposite party has taken a plea that the owner has allowed unauthorized passengers to travel in the goods vehicle as on the date of the accident and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The counsel for the complainant argued that there are no unauthorized passengers travelling in the said vehicle at the time of the accident. The counsel for the complainant argued that one person was supporting driver and another person was a cleaner who were sitting in the cabin at the time of the accident and totally there were three persons in the cabin and one person was sitting in the body of the tipper along with the Road Roller who is none other than the helper of the Road Roller hence there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy and further the counsel for the complainant argued that there is no claim made on behalf of the passengers and which it is for the own damage the claim is made. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the permit issued by the licensing authority as said by the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant’ was reputed client of the opposite party and they are regularly paying Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- towards premium to the opposite party since 25 years and they have never claimed unnecessarily at any point of time. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that the said tipper was used to transport their own Road Roller from one work place to another work place and the accident had occurred while transporting the said Road Roller along with a helper of the Road Roller who was sitting in the body of the tipper. The counsel for the complainant argued that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that it is nowhere mentioned in the policy that a supporting driver should possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation as claimed for.
13. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the said policy and the said policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the said vehicle met with an accident which is carrying a Road Roller and both the vehicles were damaged due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper has to be proved by the complainant. Further the counsel for the opposite party submitted that the driver of the tipper escaped from the accident and the inmates of the said tipper sustained injuries/died is also to be proved by the complainant. The further allegation that immediately after the accident a spot survey was conducted and subsequently the second survey also estimated the loss and the complainant is entitled for claim is also to be proved by the complainant. The counsel for the opposite party argued that due to the accident the vehicle was totally damaged and estimation for Rs.15,00,000/- is highly excessive and the complainant is not entitled even for the claim made by him and further argued that the allegation that the complainant submitted a letter to the company on 04.05.2011 accepting to take total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- is true. But the opposite party submitted that as seen from the records two persons died in the accident and the driver and another person who gave a complaint also sustained injuries. Further the counsel for the opposite party argued that as seen from the records the persons who were sitting in the cabin were unauthorized passengers travelling in the goods vehicle which is strictly prohibited under the policy. Thus the owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The counsel for the opposite party argued that there were three persons sitting in the cabin of the tipper and one person was sitting in the body of the tipper who is a helper in the Road Roller as alleged by the complainant is absolutely false and even as per the records only the driver and cleaner of the tipper along are allowed in the cabin and their risk only is insured with this company.
14. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the driving licence of the additional driver who is said to be travelling at the time of the accident was submitted by the complainant himself and the same was proved to be fake driving licence on investigation by the opposite party. Further the opposite party argued that as the person died in the accident was an additional driver he must have possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident as mentioned above. The additional driver’s licence was a fake one and as seen from the records unauthorized passengers travelling in the said vehicle is nothing but violation of the policy and permit conditions. Hence the opposite party company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant under valid grounds vide their repudiation letter dt.25.10.2011. Hence, the opposite party argued that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. Further the opposite party argued that as per section (2) of Consumer Protection Act any commercial transaction do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. As seen from the records the complainant was doing business and it comes under commercial activity.
15. After hearing the argument of both sides and perusing the documents there is no dispute with regard to issuing of the policy by the opposite party and as on the date of the accident the policy was in force. The plea of the complainant is that the said tipper was carrying Road Roller from one work place to another work place along with an additional driver and a helper of the Road Roller. As per the contention of the complainant the said vehicle was being used for his personal contract works and it was not hired to any other person. Hence the complainant is a consumer to the opposite party as per the consumer protection Act.
16. We are satisfied with the contention of the complainant and the plea that the driver of the tipper was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. And another point that has to be considered is that whether the accident was due to the presence of unauthorized passengers in the cabin. Definitely the answer is no as there were only three persons in the cabin at the time of accident which is within permissible limits. In support of this contention the complainant relied on a decision 1986 – 2006 Consumer 11379 (NS) P.Palaniswamy Versus M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited: - Wherein their lordships observed that carrying one or two person more than the permitted level is not said to be a violation of the policy conditions and in that case there were 22 passengers travelling in the said vehicle. Hence it was a clear violation but however the claim was settled on none standard basis. But in the instant case it was only four persons travelling in total including a person in the body of the tipper. Hence this point goes in favour of the complainant. As seen from the records in Ex.A2 FIR it is mentioned that there was a supporting driver and cleaner in the cabin of the tipper who died on the spot. Hence the argument of the opposite party that the person who died in the said accident is not a supporting driver but an unauthorized passenger cannot be considered. Another decision 1986 – 2006 Consumer 10349 (NS) The New India Insurance Company Limited Versus Sh. Kashmir Singh it is held that: “When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the drive. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTO’s which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of section 149 (2)(a)(ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skanadia’s Sohan Lal Passi’s and Kamla’s case. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different law.
This clearly show that whether the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident is having a valid driving licence or not hence the opposite party is liable to pay. But in the instant case it is the contention of the opposite party that the supporting driver was not having a valid driving licence. Hence the opposite party repudiated the claim this contention cannot be considered as it is the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident should possess a valid driving licence but not the supporting driver as per the terms and conditions of the policy. This point also goes in favour of the complainant.
17. In support of the opposite party contention he relied upon 2010 ACJ (709) In the Supreme Court of India at New Delhi, National Insurance Company Limited Versus Harbhajan Lal: the said citation does not suit to the present case as the facts and circumstances of the case are different from the instant case.
18. Further the contention of the opposite party that unauthorized passengers were travelling in the tipper at the time of the accident and the accident occurred only due to the unauthorized passengers travel but the said fact was not proved by the opposite party, hence his arguments cannot be considered. In the above circumstances the opposite party failed to prove that the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident was not having any valid driving licence at the time of the accident or there were unauthorized passengers in the said vehicle and their travel has caused the said accident. Hence the repudiation of the complainant claim by the opposite party is not correct.
19. Last but not least of the opposite party’s argument is that the present complainant is a reputed customer of opposite party’s and even as per complaint they were paying Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per annum as premium to the opposite party since 25 years. Hence he does not fall under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. As seen from the complaint admittedly the para 18 of the complaint discloses the said fact and this clearly shows that the present complaint cannot take shelter under Consumer Protection Act as a consumer. Hence this point goes against the complainant and the remedy for the complainant is not in a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Hence he can file a suit in a proper court against the opposite party. In the above circumstances we are of the view that the complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, hence the complaint is dismissed without costs.
20. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 04th day of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Attested copy of Insurance Policy bearing No.051000/31/10/01/
00000473 issued by the opposite party to the complainant on
12.09.2010.
Ex.A2 Attested copy of F.I.R. in crime No.48/2011 of Muddanur P.S.
dt.27.03.2011.
Ex.A3 Attested copy of driving licence relating to Ramanjulu.
Ex.A4 Attested copy of Accident report by Motor Vehicles Inspector relating to crime No.48/2011.
Ex.A5 Original cash Receipt dt.02.04.2011 issued by Sri Maruthi Recovery Van & Crine.
Ex.A6 Repudiation letter dt.25.10.2011 issued by the opposite party to
The complainant.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B2 Original Motor claim for dt.29.04.2011 submitted by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.B2 Goods carrying (other than 3WH) Public Carries package policy issued by the opposite part to the complainant.
Ex.B3 Letter dt.04.05.2011 sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.B4 Certificate of registration relating to the complainant.
Ex.B5 Goods carriage permit dt.20.10.2010 relating to the complainant’s vehicle.
Ex.B6 Form of driving licence relating to P.Sampath Kumar.
Ex.B7 Investigation report dt.22.10.2011 submitted by the investigator to the opposite party.
Ex.B8 Repudiation letter dt.25.10.2011 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B9 Letter dt.27.01.2012 sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
