Complaint filed on: 05-03-2015
Disposed on: 20-05-2016
BEFORE THE BENGALURU IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027
CC.No.437/2015
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MAY 2016
PRESENT
SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT
SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER
SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Mr.K.N.Srinivas,
S/o. S.N.Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
No.94/95, Thambuchetty
Palya Main Road, Near Antony
Church, Bengaluru-36
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Managing Director,
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, No.141, 4th Floor, Sri Shanthi Towers, 3rd Main, East of NGEF Layout, Kasturi Nagar, Bengaluru-43
ORDER
SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,82,593=00 as compensation along with interest @ 18% p.a. and award cost of this proceedings.
2. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that, the complainant is a self-employed and earning his livelihood by running a small cement retail store by name and style of “Sri Venkateshwara Agency”. To deliver the cement bags sold to the customers, the complainant had purchased a goods vehicle i.e. TATA LPT 11092/42 EX BIII bearing Reg.No.KA-52-7104 from his life savings and the said vehicle was insured by the OP, which is valid from 30-4-2014 upto 29-4-2015, bearing policy no.87568534. The cement business of complainant has very low profit margin and thereby hiring vehicles from third parties was not feasible and furthermore the third parties were not promptly delivering the goods to the customers. Therefore to mitigate losses and to safeguard the goodwill of business by delivering the goods promptly he was forced to purchase the vehicle. The complainant used to hire the services of one driver Vasantha Tilak to deliver cement to his customers. Unfortunately, on 18-6-2014 the vehicle met with an accident and causing severe damages to the vehicle and estimated cost of damages to vehicle is Rs.4,82,593=00. The driver had a valid driving license to drive the LMV-GV on the date of accident. The complainant had made an insurance claim for the damages caused to the vehicle to the OP, however the OP rejected his claim vide its letter dated 4-9-2014 stating that, the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, since the vehicle is medium goods vehicle and the driver is authorized to drive light goods vehicle only. The OP’s contention for rejecting the insurance claim is unsustainable, since the vehicle unladen weight is just 4480 kgs as per registration certificate and hence it falls within the meaning of light motor vehicle as defined in section 2 (21) of MV Act, 1988 and under the definition of medium goods vehicle. Admittedly, the driver of vehicle has LMV-GV license, consequently the OP cannot wriggle out of its liability from compensating the losses incurred to the complainant. Even conceding without admitting for the sake of argument that the driver did not possesses to drive a particular type of vehicle for which he was not licensed, nevertheless the OP cannot avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving license. The driver had claimed to have driving license to drive the vehicle in question and thereby the complainant had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, consequently, there was no willful breach of condition if any on the part of the complainant. The instant complaint against the OP for deficiency of service for not honouring his claim for insurance, despite all his attempts. The complainant has suffered huge financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency in service by OP has resulted in great hardship and loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed.
3. In response to the notice, the OP put his appearance, but failed to file version and posted the case for filing affidavit of complainant.
4. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced documents long with complaint. We have heard the arguments of complainant side and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of complainant meticulous.
5. So from the averments of the complaint of complainant, the following points arise for our consideration.
- Whether the complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the OP?
- If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Affirmative
Point no.2: As per the final order
REASONS
7. The case of complainant is that, the complainant has purchased the goods vehicle i.e. TATA LPT 11092/42 EX BIII bearing registration number KA-52-7104 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP which is valid from 30-4-2014 to 29-4-2015. On 18-6-2014 the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident and caused severe damages caused to the vehicle and the cost of damages to the vehicle is Rs.4,82,593=00. The driver had a valid driving license to drive the LMV-GV on the date of accident. The complainant had made an insurance claim for the damages caused to the vehicle with the OP. The OP rejected his claim vide letter dated 4-9-2014 stating that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, this fact has not been denied or disputed by the OP. Further in order to substantiate the same, the complainant has filed his affidavit and in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the certificate of registration (RC) of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.Ka-52-7104 and this RC standing in the name of complainant and chassis number of vehicle is MAT457010CTA00180 and engine number of vehicle is 497TC92AXY800017. So from this evidence, it is very clear that, the complainant is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing registration no.KA-52-7104 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP. To substantiate this fact, the complainant has produced the insurance policy, by looking into this policy, it clear that, the complainant has insured his vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-52-7104 with the OP and the policy was inforce from 30-4-2014 to 29-4-2015. The vehicle of complainant met with an accident, in support of this, the complaint has filed and produced the copy of charge sheet. As looking into this charge sheet, it is reveals that, on 16-6-2014 at about 12.30 p.m. the driver of the TATA Canter bearing registration number KA-51-7140 and lorry bearing registration number AP-U-8047 as resulted of this accident, the canter belongs to the complainant was damaged and it was got it repaired in Rabi Automobile Service Center by spending a sum of Rs.4,82,593=00 in support of this the complainant has produced quotation issued by Rabi Automobile Service Center. This evidence of complainant remains unchallenged, to discard the sworn testimony of complainant, there was no rebuttal evidence they were, it is proper to accept the contention of complainant that, the complainant is the owner of TATA canter bearing registration no.KA-52-7104 and it was insured with the OP and the policy was inforce from 30-4-2014 to 29-4-2015. On 16-6-2014 the TATA canter of complainant met with an accident while away to Bengaluru and as a result of accident the TATA canter was damaged and it was repaired in Rabi Automobile Service Center by spending a sum of Rs.4,82,593=00.
8. It is further contention of complainant that, the complainant has submitted the claim form before the OP, but the OP has refused to honour the claim of complainant on the ground that, as on the date of accident, the driver of vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licence, even to substantiate this fact also, the complainant has produced the letter addressed by OP dated 4-9-2014 informing the same that, the claim was rejected. So from this evidence, it is clear that, the claim of complainant was not honoured by the OP. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued before us that the claim of complainant is genuine the alleged accident to place subsistence of the policy and the driver of vehicle had valid licence inspite of that instead of honouring the claim, the OP has rejected the claim on the ground that, the driver of vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence, this act of OP is not proper and correct and in accordance with law. On the other hand, the OP ought to have honoured the claim, hence the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint. In support of his arguments, he relied decisions reported in J.Kumarandasan Nair and another v/s IRIC Sohan and other - AIR 2009 SC 1333, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and other v/s M.K.Sharma and others- 2015 ACJ 2639.
9. As looking into the charge sheet, the charge sheet has filed against the Vasanth Thilak, who is the driver of Canter bearing registration number KA-52-7140 at the time of accident and to substantiate the case of complainant, the complainant has also produced driving licence of Vasantha Thilak. By looking into this driving licence, it is valid from 29-9-1997 to 19-11-2015 and the licence is issued for driving the LMV-GV and MCWG, so as on the date of accident, the driver Vasantha Thilak was having valid driving licence, thereby it is proper to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the driver of vehicle was not holding the valid and effective licence at the time of accident and rejecting the claim of complainant. Even though, the policy was inforce, therefore it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP and this also further supported as law laydown in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v/s M.K.Sharma and others–2015 ACJ 2639. Hence, we answered these points in the affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed holding that, there is deficiency in service by the OP.
The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,82,593=00 towards repair charges to the goods vehicle i.e. TATA LPT and also the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000=00 as compensation for causing mental agony. The complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.3,000=00 towards cost of this litigation
The OP is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at 18% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 20th day of May 2016).
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
-:ANNEXURES:-
1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:
K.N.Srinivas, who being the complainant was examined.
2. Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:-
1. Copy of certificate of registration
2. Copy of insurance policy of vehicle
3. Quotation issued by Rabi Automobile Service
Centre.
4. Copy of Driving licence of Vasantha Thilak
5. Letter of OP dated 4-9-2014
6. Copies of citations
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
