O R D E R
(By Sri S. Bhaskararao, Member on behalf of the Bench)
This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 8,56,758/- towards cost of repairs, loss earnings, damages for mental agony and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the owner of Mahinda Xylo Car bearing No. AP 05 TU 7779 and the same was insured with the 1st opposite party. The said car met with an accident on 25.07.2010 damaged totally. Immediately the complainant intimated the opposite parties and lodged claim No. 3373004306. The spot survey was conducted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and estimated the cost of repairs to an amount of Rs. 4,69,214/-. Besides the opposite parties engaged the surveyor to inspect the accident vehicle and to estimate the damages. The complainant submitted all the required documents for settlement of claim. Surprisingly, the complainant came to know the claim was repudiated on the ground that “the driver at the time of accident not holding an effective and valid driving license”. A notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and having received the same they did not issue any reply. Hence, this complaint.
3 The opposite parties 1 and 3 are remained exparte. While the 2nd opposite party filed written version disputing the claim of the complainant stating that the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, his affidavit has been filed and Exs. A1 to A12 have been got marked. The documents Exs.B1 to B7 are marked by the 2nd opposite party.
5. The points which arise for consideration are:-
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the directions as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
6 In this regard the complainant marked documents Exs.A1 to A12 which are described hereunder.
Ex.A1 is copy of Fine Receipt issued by Inspector of Police, Bhimadolu dated 25.07.2010; Ex.A2 copy of “C” certificate showing ownership dated 21.10.2010; Ex.A3 is Copy of Schedule Motor policy dated 01.06.2010; Ex.A4 is Estimation of Bill issued by Garapati Auto ventures Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada dated 28.07.2010; Ex.A5 is Photos; Ex.A6 is copy of repudiation letter dated 08.10.2010; Ex.A7 is copy of driving licence dated 08.10.2010; Ex.A8 is certificate issued by R.T.A., Kakinada dated 14.10.2010; Ex.A9 is copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 27.11.2010; Ex.A10 is Acknowledgments; Ex.A11 is Authorisation letter issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada dated 12.04.2013; Ex.A12 is copy of Grant of Issue of Driving Licence dated 12.04.2013.
7 On the other hand the opposite parties marked documents Exs.B1 to B7 documents which are described hereunder.
Ex. B1 is Copy of Certificate of driving licence dated 12.04.2013; Ex.B2 is Copy of Grant of Issue of Driving Licence; Ex.B3 is copy of Survey report dated 23.09.2010; Ex.B4 is Fine Receipt dated 25.07.2010; Ex.B5 is copy of Schedule – Motor Policy dated 01.06.2010; Ex.B6 is Estimation issued by the Garapati Autoventures Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada dated 28.07.2010; Ex.B7 is Copy of repudiation letter dated 08.10.2010.
8 The complainant’s driver is having valid driving license at the time of accident, and the driver of the vehicle is no way concerned with the accident as the vehicle was hit by another vehicle on its back on the National Highway which resulted in such damage. The opposite parties with malafide intention repudiated the claim made by the complainant. On perusal of the entire case record it shows the validity of driving license upto the year of 2025 which is a official document issued by R.T.A., Kakinada. Ex.B4 is of no use to say the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the complaint. Admittedly no charge sheet is filed by Police.
9 As such the opposite parties are reluctantly refused the claim made by the complainant under the above circumstances of the case, the complaint is partly allowed.
10. In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- [ Rupees Eight lakhs only] towards repairs and pay damages of Rs. 50,000/- and the claim of loss of earning is disallowed. The above directions are to be complied within two months from the date of this order.
Typed by the steno, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 28th day of November, 2014
SD/-xxxx SD/-xxxx SD/-xxxx
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant :
PW1: Kum. A. Sudhalakshmi
PW2: Sri K. Ramachandrarao
For opposite party : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 25.07.2010 Copy of Fine Receipt issued by Inspector of Police, Bhimadolu
Ex.A2 21.10.2010 Copy of “C” certificate showing ownership
Ex.A3 01.06.2010 Copy of Schedule Motor policy
Ex.A4 28.07.2010 Estimation of Bill issued by Garapati Auto ventures Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada
Ex.A5 Photos
Ex.A6 08.10.2010 Copy of repudiation letter
Ex.A7 Copy of driving licence
Ex.A8 14.10.2010 Certificate issued by R.T.A., Kakinada
Ex.A9 27.11.2010 Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A10 Acknowledgments
Ex.A1112.04.2013 Authorisation letter issued by the Deputy Transport
Commissioner, Kakinada
Ex.A12 Copy of Grant of Issue of Driving Licence
For opposite parties:-
Ex. B1 Copy of Certificate of driving licence
Ex.B2 Copy of Grant of Issue of Driving Licence
Ex.B3 23.09.2010 Copy of Survey report
Ex.B4 25.07.2010 Fine Receipt
Ex.B5 01.06.2010 Copy of Schedule – Motor Policy
Ex.B6 28.07.2010 Estimation issued by the Garapati Autoventures Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada
Ex.B7 08.10.2010 Copy of repudiation letter
SD/-xxxx SD/-xxxx SD/-xxxxxx
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
