BEFORE THE DISTRICT FOUM: KURNOOL
Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 2nd day of September, 2005
CD No. 158/2003
Kummari Ramanna,
S/o. Pakkiraiah,
H.No. 7-97-447-3,
Nagendra Nagar,
Bellary Road,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant.
-Vs-
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd,
R.S.Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 31.08.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri K.Uma Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri S.S.Hussain, Advocate for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is field under section 12 of CP, Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,23,580/- for spare parts and Rs. 37,500/- for labour charges with interest and costs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6151. On 15.11.2001, the said lorry while proceeding to Pebbair with load met with accident near Dharmavarm Village which resulted in complete damages to the said lorry on the date of the said accident the said lorry was covered under the policy issued by opposite party. The intimation of accident was informed to the opposite party and the
opposite party deputed a surveyor who inspected the damaged lorry and
submitted his report to the opposite parties. A case was also registered against the driver of the lorry in Kodandapur Police station in Crime No. 37/2001. The complainant incurred heavy expenditure of Rs. 1,23,580/- for spare parts and Rs. 37,000/- for labour charges for getting the lorry repaired and submitted all original bills to the opposite parties, even after receipt of original bills and several approaches the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainant and gave a letter dt 16.5.2002 to the complainant stating that they are unable to settle the claim. Hence, the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.
3. In support of his cas e the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dt 16.5.2002 of the opposite party to the complainant and (2) original driving licence of K. Ramanna renewed from 20.3.2001 to 19.3.2004, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.2 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the deposition of PW1, M.A Jeelani.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version as defence.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts, but it admits the complainant as the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6151 and the said lorry is insured with opposite party under policy bearing No. 651100/31/21/11/39712/2001 and the same was in force on the date of the accident, which occurred near Dharmavaram Village, in Mahaboob Nagar Dist on 15.10.2001. Immediately, after the accident the opposite party appointed Mr B.P.K Reddy to conduct spot survey and after dismantle of the lorry the opposite party appointed another surveyor Mr M.R. Sreenivas to conduct final survey and who assessed the loss of the lorry to Rs. 39,000/-. Thereafter, another surveyor S.Ramesh Babu was appointed to conduct post repair inspection and he submitted his report, basing on the above three reports of surveyors the damages to the said vehicle was arrived to Rs.33,000/-. On the other hand the opposite party appointed another surveyor to verify the driving licence No. 318/August 1998, dt 19.1.1988 issued by Licensing Authority, Aurangabad, which was subsequently renewed by Addl. Licensing Authority, Nandyal, and Licensing Authority, Hyderabad Central Zone, of the driver who was driving the said lorry. The said surveyor Y.Laxshman Rao after obtaining information from Licensing Authority, Aurangabad, filed his report stating that DL No.318/ August. 1988 was issued to one Shaik Faroogui, Mohd Zaharuddin S/o. Md Saifuddin Faroogui R/o Sadath Nagar, Aurangabad and not to K. Ramana (the complainant) and he was authorized to driver motor cycle only. From this it is clear that driving licence submitted by the complainant is false and fake. As per the policy terms and conditions, the driver should possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. In this case the complainant was not having an effective driving licence on the date of the accident. Therefore, the opposite party is not liable to pay damages sustained by this lorry.
6. In the said circumstances there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy and also violated the permit conditions and Motor Vehicle Rules by carrying passengers. Hence the repudiation of claim by opposite party for the claim of Rs.1,23,580/- towards spare parts and Rs.37,500/- towards labour charges of the complainant which is too excessive, is in accordance with terms and condition of the policy and rules and under no circumstances the complainant is entitled to the said amount.
7. The opposite parties in support of its case relied on its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version and along with deposition of RW1( C.M.Sontakke) and filed the following documents Viz (1) Spot survey report of B.P.K.Reddy, dated 23.11.2001 (2) Private and Confidential Motor Survey report of M.R. Srinivasulu, dated 28.12.2001 (3) Post Repairs Inspection Report of S.Rameshbabu, dated 9.1.2002 (4) Letter of Y. Laxman Rao, Insurance Surveyor to opposite party dated 1.5.2002 (5) Letter of opposite party dated 18.4.2002 addressed to Licencing Authority ,Aurugabad (6) Motor Vehicle No. 051100/31/021/11/39712/2001issued to complainant and (7) Office copy of repudiation letter dt 16.5.2002 of opposite party, addressed to complainant and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.7 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party:-
9. It is the case of the complainant that his lorry bearing No. AP 21 T 6151 met with accident on 15.11.2001 and the said lorry was badly damaged, the said lorry was covered under the policy issued by the opposite party on the date of the accident. The complainant thereafter submitted claim form along with original bills but the opposite party repudiated the claim vide Ex A.1. The Ex A.1 dates to 16.5.2002, it repudiates the claim of complainant stating that the complainant carried more persons than permitted and violated terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicle Act, Rules and also the driving licence of the driver bearing No. 318/Augut/1988 issued by Licencing Authority, Aurangabad is not issued to the complainant and it is not valid and effective driving licence and it is false and fake one. The Ex A.2 is the driving licence of the complainant bearing No. 318/August/1988 issued by Licensing Authority, Aurangabad, it is valid from 19.1.1988 to 18.1.1991, and subsequently renewed at Hyderabad and Nandyal.
10. The main contention of the opposite party is that the Driving Licence of the complainant in Ex A.2 is false and fake one, in support of their contention, the opposite party got a commissioner appointed to examine the Addl. Licencing Authority, Aurangabad and the commissioner filed his report along with deposition of Mr C.M.Sontakke, Deputy Regional Transport Officer Auragabad (RW1). In the said deposition, the RW1, Mr C.M Sontakke says that he is giving evidence based on office records and the said driving licence No.88/318/August was issued to one Faruqui Mohammed Zahiruddin, S/o. Md Saifuddin Farookie, Kareen Colony, Aurangabad and the Ex A.2 (driving licence of the complainant) is not issued by their office. He further says that the photograph of the licence bearing No. 88/318/August present in their office record is not at all talling with the photograph in Ex A.2 and admits letter dt 30.4.2002 in Ex X.1 is issued by their office. In the cross examination, RW1, further says that he compared 1988 photograph in their register with Ex A.2 photograph and came to conclusion that two photographs are not similar and in further re-examination he says driving licence No. 88/318 August of Faruqai Mohammad Zahiruddin is renewed upto 5.9.2008.
11. The complainant filed objections to the said report, the main objection was that the commissioner examined a wrong person as the summons was issued to examine Addl. Licencing Authority, Aurangabad but the commissioner examined Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Aurangabad, the said objection of complainant is untenable and cannot be accepted, because the complainant’s side has participated in the said examination conducted by the commissioner, and he cross examined and Re-cross examined the RW1 (CM. Sontakke) and further no objection was taken at the relevant time by the complainant’s side while examining the said person by the commissioner, at a belated stage the said objections cannot be accepted and does not inspire any confidence. Hence, the said objections taken by the complainant’s side is remaining devoid of merit and force.
12. Thus, basing on the evidence of RW1 what appears is that the driving licence No.88/318/August of the complainant (Ramanna) is not genuine and effective driving licence and not issued by Licensing Authority, Aurangabad, hence the issual of Ex A.2 is doubtful, when the issual of Ex A.2 is doubtful, the complainant cannot rely on the said exhibit as it does not carry any evidentiary value which can be relied upon, therefore, what follows is that the licence possessed by the complainant is false and fake one.
13. The complainant in support of their case got examined M.A. Jalani as PW1. In the said deposition, PW1 says the driving licence of the complainant (Ex A.2) was renewed by their office from 19.1.1991 to 18.1.1994 on getting necessary information from RTA Hyderabad, where the said licence was renewed previously. In the cross examination he says that he personally do not know whether the Hyderabad RTA had followed the above procedure while renewing the said driving licence at Hyderabad. The PW1 cannot say whether the driving licence of the complainant is valid and effective licence, as he only renewed the said driving licence.
14. As per the Ex A 2 (driving licence of the complainant), the said licence was issued by Licensing Authority, Aurangabad, but the RW1, Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Aurangabad, says Ex A.2 is not issued by their office, as per their office records. Therefore, what appears is that, the Ex A.2 is not issued by any competent authority, which has authority to issue driving licence to competent persons. In the above said circumstances the complainant utterly failed to prove his case by placing relevant cogent material supporting his case.
15. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on the decision of National Commission between United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs Jadhav Kirana Stores, reported in III 2005 CPJ Pg 79, where in it was held that surveyor’s report is an important document, which should not be shunned without sufficient reasons.
16. In the absence of any thing to the contrary, backed by evidence of RW1, it is to be accepted that Ex A.2 driving licience of the complainant is not issued by any competent authority, therefore, it is not valid and effective driving licence and it is false and fake one. Hence, there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy by the complainant.
17. To conclude form the above discussion the complainant miserably failed to prove his case and there appears no error, defect or deficiency on the part of opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the complainant is not having any remedy as sought from the opposite party.
18. In the result, there being no merit and force in the case of the complainant it is dismissed.
Dictation to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 2nd day of September, 2005
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVDIECNE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Letter dt 16.05.2002 addressed by United India Insurance Company ltd
To the complainant regarding to the repudiation of the claim.
Ex A.2 Driving licence of K.Rammanna renewed from 20.3.2001 to 19.3.2004.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Spot Survey report of B.P.K.Reddy, dated 23.11.2001.
Ex B.2 Private and Confidential Motor Survey Report of M.R Srinivasulu dated 2812.2001.
Ex B.3 Post Repairs Inspector Report of S.Rameshbabu dated 9.1.2002.
Ex B.4 Letter of Y.Laxmanrao, Insurance Surveyor to opposite party dated 1.5.2002.
Ex B.5 Letter of opposite party dated 18.4.2002 addressed to Licencing Authority, Aurangabad.
Ex B.6 Motor vehicle policy No. 051100/31/021/11/39712/2001 issued to
Complainant.
Ex B.7 Office copy of repudiation letter dt 16.5.2002 of opposite party addressed to complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri K.Uma Hanumantha Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant
2. Sri S.S. Hussain, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
