Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/192/2014

Savakka B Gangai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager. Untied India Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B G patil

16 Mar 2015

ORDER

(Order dictate by Sri V.S. Gotakhindi,  Member).

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against O.P. alleging deficiency in insurance service of repudiation of the claim pertain into personal accident.        

2) O.P. in the version denying the deficiency in service contend that the policy is towards light goods vehicle and the driver Anand Ganagi possessed MCWG and LMV (non transport licence) under the terms and conditions of the policy there is no valid driving licence of the Driver. Hence liable to be dismissed. 

          3) Complainant has filed her affidavit and some documents are produced. Officer of the O.P. has filed his affidavit and some documents are produced.

          4) For complainant written argument is filed and also we have heard both learned counsel and perused the records.

5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and is entitled to the reliefs sought?

6) Finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.

REASONS

          7) It is proved from the oral and documentary evidence on record, Smt. Savakka B. Ganagi was owner of motor cycle KA-25 D-0949. Said vehicle was insured with O.P. under policy No.2401003112B300844782 on 31/10/2012 at 13.15 and the premium of Rs.100/- was paid towards personal accident cover for owner cum driver and limited liability was Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant further submits that he has incurred loss and damage to the tune of Rs.1,05,000/- due to accident the complainant submits that he has submitted claim form to the O.P. on 24/2/2013 and necessary documents are submitted along with the claim form. The complainant further submits that the O.Ps. have not settle the claim and on 27/6/2013 with a registered notice has repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant further submitted that due to the accident, vehicle was standing idle for three months and there was a loss of Rs.90,000/- in business income.

          8) O.P. in the version denying the deficiency in service contend that the policy is towards light goods vehicle and the driver Anand Ganagi possessed MCWG and LMV (non transport licence) under the terms and conditions of the policy there is no valid driving licence of the Driver. The O.P. further contended that on 24/2/2013 the complainant did not filed claim petition with documents and also denies that there was loss to the complainant due to vehicle standing idle to the tune of Rs.90,000/- etc., The O.P. has produced the quotation for the spare parts issued by Sutaria Auto mobiles and also F.I.R. complaint, some of the photographs submitted by the complainant to the O.P. and also the survey conducted by the surveyor.

          9) It is relevant to be noted that, the O.P. at para No.6 of the objection and affidavit have denied that the complainant filed the claim form on 24/2/2013 and at the same time at para No.9 of the objection and affidavit stated that “after receipt of the claim form submitted by the complainant this O.P. appointed K.R. Maheshkumar, licenced surveyor, Loss assessor, Valuer’s and he submitted final survey on 24/2/2014”. It is to be noted that on one breath the O.P. denies that the complainant has not filed the claim form but on the other hand as noted supra at para No.9 states that they appointed the surveyor immediately after receipt of the claim form. These shows that the O.P. has merely denied the contents of the complainant for the sake of the denial. The O.P. states that the said assessor after labour charges and depreciation of the vehicle valued the same for Rs.63,304.84/- as a net amount subject to terms and condition of the policy. The O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the driver of the vehicle possessed LMV/LGV licence and hence they are not liable to pay the claim as made by the complainant.

          10) Considering the facts and the material on record, the important point for consideration is liability of the O.P. Company that though the commencement of the policy was on 31/10/2012, the accident occurred on 24/2/2013 and premium was covered.

11) Counsel for the complainant relied ruling reported in (2015) Acci. C. R.90 (S.C.) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that….

…..Held in view of the definition of light motor vehicle and medium goods vehicle and Rule 14 and Form No.4, a driver who had valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorized to drive light goods vehicle as well-Therefore, there was no breach of any condition f insurance policy-Order of the High Court set aside and that of the Tribunal restored.

In the light this decision, in the present case the vehicle is registered as LGV-LI class i.e., light goods vehicle and the Driver who was driving at the time of accident. Their lordship in the above decision held that the driver who holds LMV licence is authorized to drive LGV vehicle as well.  

          12) Considering the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the complainant, the O.P. company cannot avoid the liability,  as they had collected premium and issued the policy. As per the liability and premium collected towards the P.A. is Rs.100/- and as per the policy the assured sum is Rs.2,00,000/- covers for P.A.

          13) Thus, repudiation of the claim by O.P. is unjust and illegal. Accordingly, following order;

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.P. is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 67,474,/- to the complainant in respect of the policy in question, with interest at the rate of 9% P.A. from the date of repudiation till realization of the entire amount.

          Further, O.P. shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16^th day of March 2015.)

          Member                          Member                President.

gm*