Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
R. Ramachandra Reddy B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 8 the day of April 2004
C.D.No 132/2003
Musani Pulla Reddy,
S/o. M. Rama Subba Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
Agriculturist, Mukkamalla (V),
Sanjamala (M), Kurnool Dist. . . .complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri B. Nagalakshmi Reddy.
-Vs-
The Divisional manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri C. Nagendranath
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
The complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.30,000/- as damages to the tractor A.P. 21/U.8816 1ith 12% interest per annum, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of the tractor bearing No. AP – 21/U. 8816 which was insured with the opposite party under policy bearing No. 611502/31/01/13824, the said policy commenced from 31.10.2001 to 30.10.2002, as per the terms of the said policy the risk of own damages also covered. On 24.8.2002 at about 7. A.M the said tractor while returning with grave for laying bond in their land met with accident and the engine of the tractor damaged. The said tractor was driven by complainant’s brother Musani Chandra Shekar Reddy. Immediately the complainant informed about the accident to the opposite party and submitted claim forms along with bills and requested for payment of Rs.30,000/- as damages to the engine of the tractor. The opposite party appointed a surveyor to estimate the damages. But the opposite party repudiated the claim through its communication dt 10.1.2003 on the ground that the driver on the wheels was not possessing valid drivinglicence to drive transport tractor and trailer. The said licence was issued on 12.4.2002 by Regional transport Authority, Nandyal to drive tractor and trailer. Hence there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy on part of the complaiannt and the said repudiation is illegal. So the complainant is entitled to the claim amount and the opposite party in not paying the said amount amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant..
The complainant in support of his contentions relies on the following documents Viz (1) FIR No. 44/2002 dt 24.8.2002 (2) original driving licence of M. Chandra Shekar Reddy D.L.No. 878/2002 and (3) letter dt 10.1.2003 of the opposite party to the complainant, besides to the above documents the complainant also relies on his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments as evidence and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for their appreciation in this case.
In pursuance to the notice of this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and filed its written version denying the complaint as not maintainable in Law and facts and the complainant to strictly prove them. It admits that complainant’s tractor trailer bearing No. AP 21 U 8816 and 8817 covered under the policy bearing No. 611505/31/01/13824 for a period of 31.10.2001 to 30.10.2002 from the opposite party and the said policy covers own damage risk also. It also admits the tractor trailer met with accident on 24.8.2002 and on intimation deputed a surveyor. Mr.P.S Mahaboogb Hussain who carried out final survey and assessed the loss to Rs. 11,000/- only but not Rs.30,000/- as stated by the complainant.
In further submits that the tractor trailer was registered as Public Goods Carrier, as transport vehicle as per registration certificate and permit issued by Registration authority and the opposite party also issued policy as per the R.C permit and M.V.Act of the complainant’s vehicle as Good Carrying Transport Vehicle only. As per M.V. Act and M.V. Rules, the effective valid driving licence to drive tractor trailer registered as Goods Carrying Transport Vehicle is tractor trailer Transport DL, but the driver driving tractor trailer of the complainant at the time of the accident is possessing licence to driver Tractor- trailer/Non-transport Vehicle only, against the effective driving license of Tractor trailer/ transport. The Additional Licensing Authority, Nandyal also confirmed vide D.L extract dt 1.11.2002 that the driver at the time of the accident was authorized to drive tractor- trailer/ Non-transport Vehicle only. Hence the complainant has entrusted his vehicle to be driver by a person who was not authorised to drive the tractor- trailer registered as Goods Carrying Transport Vehicle in violation of M.V. Act, M.V. Rules, and terms and conditions of the policy issued by opposite party. Hence the opposite party repudiated the claim rightly and there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and prays for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
Lastly is submits that if the Hon’ble Forum comes to conclusion that the complainant is entitle to compensation and the same may be restricted to Rs. 11,000/- only as assessed by M.P.S. Mahaboob Hussain, independent insurance surveyor.
Hence, the point for consideration is to want relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service/ deficient conduct on part of the opposite party and his entitleness to the claims made:-
The facts which are not in dispute are the complainant owner of tractor trailer bearing No. 611501/31/017 13824 and the said tractor covered under the policy bearing No. 611502/31/017 13824 for a period of 31.10.2001 to 30.10.2002 and the said policy covered own damage also, and the tractor met with accident on 24.8.2002 while the policy was in force and the opposite party appointed a spot surveyor and he assessed the loss to Rs.11,000/-.
The main thrust of argument of the opposite party is that the driver on wheels at the time of the said accident was not possessing valid effective driving licence authorised to drive tractor/ trailer of the complainant as per M.V. Act and M.V. Rules, admittedly the said driver was possessing a licence to drive tractor trailer/ Non-transport and not tractor- trailer/ transport which is a valid licence as per opposite party. The opposite party except alleging the driver should possess licence as per M.V. Act and M.V. Rules, did not brought on record the said Act and rules to know whether the licence possessed by the driver on wheels at the time of accident is valid or not, especially when the driver was possessing licence to drive tractor-trailer/ Non-transport. The opposite party taking several pleas in its written version but did not made any endeavour to substantiate them by placing any evidence.
When the claim of the complainant is repudiated on the ground that the driver on wheels was not holding valid licence, the onus is on the opposite party to establish the lack of authenticity of driving licence possessed by the driver. In the present case the driver M. Chandra Shekar Reddy having original driving licence No. 878/2002, the original driving licence is on record and marked as Ex A.2. It was valid in between the dates 11.4.2002 to 10.4.2022. The accident took place on 24.8.2002. The driving licence was valid on that date of accident as it is for tractor trailer Non-transport. Admittedly the said accident took place when the tractor trailer was under personal use of the complainant as per Ex A.1 FIR and not for transportation of goods. The only submission of learned counsel for opposite party is that the endorsement in page 5 of Ex A.2 shows as licensed to drive tractor trailer (N/T) only, but on page 6 of the said Ex A.2, it is mentioned as authorised to drive as paid employs a transport vehicle with effect from 11.4.2002. Hence what remains established is that the complainant was possessing a valid driving licence to drive a tractor- trailer and in the absence of any endeavour by the opposite party to place any evidence on record to show invalidity of the driving licence of the driver at the time of the accident amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
The point for consideration is to what compensation the complainant is remaining entitled, the complainant claims Rs.30,000/- as damages to the tractor but did not place any bills in support of the said claim, in the absence of any bills the complainant in not remaining entitled to that amount. The opposite party submits that it appointed a surveyor by name Mr. P.S Mahaboob Husain, who assessed the loss to Rs.11,000/- only. The opposite party merely taking plea in the written version did not brought on record the said report of surveyor who assessed the said tractor. Hence the said plea remaining as a plea for plea sake. In order to quantity the damages of the tractor, the opposite party brought on record bills submitted by complainant along with claim form and got is marked as Ex B.1 A bard perusal of Ex B.1 shows three bills in the name of the complainant dt 5.9.2002, 5.9.2002 and 5.9.2002. From the aforesaid Ex B.1 it is evident that the complainant purchased spare parts for replacement of the damaged parts of his tractor.
Therefore, to sum up of the above discussions in the absence of any evidence on part of the opposite party on the other hand the driver hodling valid driving licence to drive the said tractor trailer, the complainant is remaining entitled to claims and the claim is restricted to as per Ex B.1 i.e Rs 17,998/-+ Rs. 5,578/- + Rs. 26,276/- only.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 26,276/- to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum from the date of accident till realization and Rs.1,500/- as compensation, Rs.500/- as cost within a month of the receipt of this order for compliance, in default the opposite party shall pay the supra awarded amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 8th day of April, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 FIR No. 44/2002 dt 24.8.2002.
Ex A.2 Original driving licence of M. Chandra Sekar Reddy bearing D.L
No.878/02.
Ex A.3 Letter dt 10.1.2003 addressed by Branch Manager, New India Assurance
Co., Ltd, Nandyal to the complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party
Ex B.1 Bunch of three bills issued by G.M Tractor and Form Equipment Nandyal to the complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
