BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
F.A.No.418/2012 against C.C.No.32/2011, Dist.Forum,Kurnool.
Between:
V.M.Anwar,S/o.S.Imam Saheb,
Plot No.134, Ganesh nagar,
Kurnool- 518 003. …Appellant/
Complainant
And
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Deputy Manager,
N.G.Ragendra Prasad, Divisional Office,
H.No.40-526, HDCT Complex, 1st Floor,
Railway Station Road,
Kurnool- 518 004. …Respondent/
Opp.party
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K.Rathanga Pani Reddy
Counsel for the respondent : Ms.M.Seetha Devi
QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
The unsuccessful complainant filed the above appeal against the order dt.20.3.2012 of the District Forum, Kurnool made in C.C.No.32/2011 filed by the complainant for an amount of Rs.68,355/- for vehicle damage under a policy, and for Rs.2 lakhs towards damages for causing mental agony etc.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is the owner of the Indica Car bearing no.AP 21 TV 0403. It is a motor cab registered with RTA, Kurnool as a transport vehicle. The complainant insured the said vehicle with opposite party under the policy bearing no.611500/31/09/01/00001983, the policy was in force from 25.6.2009 to 24.6.2010. One P.Essac who is having valid driving license was appointed as the driver of the vehicle. On 18.5.2010, when the vehicle was returning from Markapur, met with an accident near Hasnabad cross road. After the accident, the complainant took the vehicle to the work shop and got it repaired by spending Rs.68,355/-. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a claim to the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 20.9.2010 on flimsy grounds. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party insurance company filed written version admitting that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no.AP21 TV 0403 and it was insured with the opposite party and that the vehicle of the complainant met with a road accident on 18.5.2010 and that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The opposite party stated that after receiving the intimation from the complainant about the accident , a surveyor was appointed and the surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.24,500/-. The opposite party contended that the driver of the vehicle was not holding effective driving license to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. The driver was authorized to drive only LMV non transport vehicle. The charge sheet was also filed against the driver u/s. 3 of the M.V.Act for not holding valid driving license. Thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.
During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the opposite party, its Administrative Officer I.D.Muneppa filed his evidence affidavit and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the opp.party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant holding that the driver was not having effective driving license to drive the transport vehicle of the complainant, on the date of the accident and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Consequently, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the above appeal questioning the validity and the legality of the order of the District Forum.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
The factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the driver of the vehicle was possessing valid driving license to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, if so, whether the repudiation of policy by the opp.party on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no valid license to drive the transport vehicle is valid. It is an admitted fact that the driver of the vehicle is holding a valid license to drive LMV non transport vehicle.
In the complaint, the complainant has stated that on 18.5.2010 he instructed his driver to take his family in the car to Markapur to see their relative at Markapur, so, accordingly the driver of the vehicle went to Markapur left the family of the complainant and when he was returning back to Kurnool, the accident took place at about 11 p.m. near Husnabad cross roads. The opposite party has not denied the above case of the complainant either in the written version or in the evidence affidavit filed by the opposite party. The evidence affidavit of the complainant proved the above case of the complainant. It is not the case of the opp.parties that the driver was carrying passengers at the time of the accident. Even Ex.B7 charge sheet does not disclose that the driver of the vehicle was carrying passengers at the time of the accident. These circumstances, established that the driver was not carrying passengers in the car at the time of the accident and that he was driving empty car at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident is a light motor vehicle and Ex.A2 is a LMV license. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no material violation of any of the conditions and terms of the policy.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in its judgement at paras 10 and 11, in E.Rajeswari and others vs. T.S.Sekhar and another reported in 2011 (1) ALD page 48 held as follows:
“So far as the second aspect is concerned, the Tribunal held that the driving licence Ex.B1 was only for light motor vehicles and that the driver was not permitted to drive a transport vehicle. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The reason is that the connotation “light motor vehicle” is relevant, in the context of the size and make of the vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The expression transport vehicle on the other hand, deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For instance, even a small vehicle, like, Autorickshaw can be treated as a transport vehicle, because of its use. Where as a big sedan or car can be used as private vehicle. The LMV licence issued to a driver enables him to drive the vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purpose, or as a transport vehicle.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria (2008- AIR Kar R -2-280/2008-SCC-3-464 held as follows:
“ It is evident that transport vehicle has not been substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. The light motor vehicle continued at the relevant point of time to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.”
In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above and having regard to the above rulings, we are of the view that the repudiation of the complainant’s claim by the opposite party insurance company on the ground that the driver P.Issaq, at the time of the accident, was possessing driving license to drive LMV–non transport vehicles only, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident is registered as transport LM vehicle, is not valid and the repudiation of the complainant’s claim on that ground amounts to deficiency in service.
The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.68,355/- towards the loss sustained to the vehicle due to the accident that took place on 18.5.2010. He has also claimed a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards the damages for causing the mental agony to the complainant. In support of his claim, besides his evidence affidavit, the complainant filed Exs.A7, the photo copy of the estimation of MS Auto Garage, Kurnool given to opposite party dt.7.6.2010 for a total sum of Rs.94,005/-, Ex.A8, photo copy of cash bill for Rs.13,500/- issued by M.S.Auto garage, Kurnool dt. 24.6.2010 in favour of the complainant , Ex.A9, photo copy of cash bill for Rs.6,000/- issued by city painters, Kurnool dt.24.6.2010 in favour of the complainant, Ex.A10, photo copy of tax invoice/cash bills (two in number) for Rs.41,635/- dt. 24.6.2010 and Ex.A11, photo copy of tax invoice/cash bill for Rs.7,220/- dt.24.6.2010. The opposite party neither admitted nor denied the above documents i.e. Exs.A7 to A11.
The opposite party filed Ex.B5 surveyor’ s report. As seen from Ex.B5, soonafter the information received from the complainant, the opposite party appointed P.Narendra Kishore to assess the damage caused to the vehicle. Accordingly, the said surveyor assessed the loss and submitted his Ex.B5 report to the opposite party assessing the net loss at Rs.24,500/-. The surveyor has also referred the original estimate of M/s.M.S.Auto Garage, Kurnool for Rs.1,04,500/- . The opposite party in its counter agreed to give the amount of Rs.24,500/- to the complainant under the policy, in case the District Forum finds any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has not filed affidavit of the surveyor in proof of Ex.B5 report.
Having regard to the above evidence placed by both the parties, regarding the quantum of damages, we consider that the complainant’s claim for Rs.68,355/- is reasonable and the complainant is entitled to that amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the District Forum is not sustainable under law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint in C.C.No.32/2011 is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.68,355/- to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 20.9.2010 vide Ex.A5 till realisation. The opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the litigation.
The respondent/opp.party is directed to comply with the order within four weeks.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Pm* Dt. 21.6.2013
