BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER
Tuesday, 28th April 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 58/ 2014
Pothineni Prathap, S/o Lakshumaiah,
aged about 50 years, Hindu, Propretor of
M/s Vijaya Foods, Residing at Door No. 26/249,
Nethaji Nagar, Proddatur – 516 360,
Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Divisional Manager, 2/789, Nagarajupeta,
Kadapa city and district
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch manager, D.No. 8/83, First Floor,
Gandhi Road, Proddatur – 516 360, Kadapa District. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 20-4-2015 in the presence of Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate for Respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12, & 14, R/w Section 2 (1) (i) (iii) (c) & (g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 2,02,189/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till realization, to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant is the registered owner of light motor Tata goods carriage vehicle bearing No. AP 04 TT 4570. He insured the said vehicle with the respondents for the period from 12-3-2013 to 11-3-2014 under policy No. 61120431120100002436. He paid premium to the said policy regularly. On 15-11-2013 complainant’s vehicle went to Karnataka state with load of food products and was returning to Proddatur without load and on the way at Molkalgiri of Karnataka state the said vehicle met with an accident and badly damaged. The same was informed to the respondents, in turn the company deputed a surveyor and surveyor conducted survey and handed over the vehicle to the complainant for effecting repairs. The complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,02,189/- for repairs of the vehicle. The complainant submitted claim by producing necessary documents with bills for settlement of the claim. But the respondents served a repudiation letter on 4-3-2014 stating that the driver has only LMV non transport license instead of LMV transport license. Thus, complainant violated the policy conditions. The repudiation by the respondents is not proper. The complainant got issued legal notice on 01-4-2014 demanding to settle the claim but they issued reply with all false allegations. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed counter and the same was adopted by respondent No. 2. Respondents admitted that the complainant was owner of vehicle bearing No. AP 04 TT 4570 and the same was insured with their company and the said vehicle met with road accident on 15-11-2013 and the same was intimated to them and conducted survey by the surveyor. They have also admitted that the policy was valid from 12-3-2013 to 11-3-2014 but they contended that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was having only LMV non transport driving license which is required LMV transport. Hence, they have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is further contended the surveyor assessed the loss caused to the vehicle to a tune of Rs. 1,48,000/- only and after submission of bills and estimation of surveyor and after depreciation assessed the net amount of loss to the tune of Rs. 1,12,000/- only. Proper reply was given to the legal notice issued by the complainant. Hence, there are no merits in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed for?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But Exs. A1 to A8 for complainant and Exs. B1 to B4 for respondents are marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. Point Nos. 1 & 2. There is no dispute between the parties in this case that the complainant is the owner of the Light Motor vehicle TATA goods carriage vehicle bearing No. AP 04 T T : 4570 and it was insured with the respondents insurance company for the period from 12-3-2013 to 11-3-2014 under policy of Ex. A1. It is also not in dispute that the above goods carriage vehicle of the complainant met with road accident on 15-11-2013 and sustained damage to the vehicle and on that day the insurance was in force. The documents Exs. A1 to A8 and B1 to B4 also proved the same.
8. It is the case of complainant that he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,02,189/- towards repairs of the vehicle of him met with accident. The complainant filed Ex. A2 bills five in numbers issued by Baba Auto Motors, Anantapur to prove his expenditure at Rs. 2,02,189/-. On the other hand it is the case of respondents that a surveyor was appointed by the R2 insurance company and surveyor filed report under Ex. B2 assessing the damages to the tune of Rs. 1,48,000/- with net assessment of Rs. 1,12,000/-. It is further case of respondent No. 2 that the claim made by the complainant is repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had only L.M.V non – transport driving license but not L.M.V transport driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the complainant violated policy conditions.
9. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that though the complainant’s driver at the time of accident was having LMV non-transport driving license, the same was valid as the vehicle is a light motor vehicle and accident occurred when it was coming without load and the driving license hold by the driver at the time of accident is valid and no violation of policy conditions.
10. There is considerable force in the contention of complainant. The respondents insurance company cannot repudiate the claim when the policy was inforce on flimsy grounds. In this case the respondents admitted the insurance was inforce to the complainant’s vehicle when it met with accident. A surveyor was also appointed by the respondents to assess the damage sustained by the vehicle when it met with accident. The surveyor assessed the damages as per Ex. B2 report to the tune of Rs. 1,48,000/- and after deducting depreciation etc., assessed net value of Rs. 1,12,540/-. But whereas, as per Ex. A2 bills the complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,02,189/- towards repairing charges, spare parts etc., The respondents should not have repudiated the claim even as per surveyors report for an amount atleast for Rs. 1,48,000/-. But that also they repudiated on the ground that the driver had no proper driving license. Admittedly, the vehicle was coming after unloading goods at the time of accident. As per Ex. A5 the driver of the vehicle had driving license to drive light motor vehicle and it is valid upto 5-5-2028. The vehicle met with accident is light motor vehicle, though it is goods carriage one. As seen from Ex. A4 registration certificate the unladed weight is 3160 and grass vehicle weight is 6250. As per M.V. Act. If the vehicle is below 7,500 Kgs weight the same would comes under Light Motor vehicle, though transport vehicle. In this case the complainant’s vehicle met with accident is only a light motor vehicle and the license held by the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident which is LMV is sufficient to drive the vehicle at the time of accident as it is was coming without load at the time of accident. Since the policy was inforce at the time of accident as per Ex. A1 & B1 the respondents cannot repudiate the claim on that ground. The repudiation of the claim by the respondents is unjust. They should have honoured the claim atleast for Rs. 1,48,000/- assessed by the company surveyor. Therefore, we hold there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents in settling the claim at Rs. 1,48,000/- though not Rs. 2,02,189/- as claimed by the complainant. Hence, complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,48,000/- towards damages apart from some amount for mental agony and costs. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
11. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 1,48,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty eighty thousand only) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization and shall also pay Rs, 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The respondents shall pay the above amount within 45 days from the date of receipt this order. The rest of the complainant’s claim is disallowed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 28th April 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex.A1 Photocopy of policy certificate valid from 12-3-2013 to 11-3-2014.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of the bills 5 in number for Rs.2,02,189-00.
Ex.A3 Photocopy of FIR, Dt. 16-11-2013.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Registration Certificate of the complainants vehicle.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Driving License.
Ex.A6 Photocopy of repudiation letter, dt. 4-3-2014.
Ex.A7 Photocopy of legal notice, Dt. 1-4-2014.
Ex.A8 Reply notice, dt. 14-4-2014.
Exhibits marked for Respondents : -
Ex.B1 Attested copy of the insurance policy.
Ex.B2 Photocopy of the surveyors report.
Ex.B3 Photocopy of Flysheet calculation made by the respondents.
Ex.B4 Photocopy of the claim forms submitted by the complainant.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri J. Ravi, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri D.V.S. Prasad, Advocate for respondents.
B.V.P.
