BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday  the 1^st day of October,  2009

C.C. 17/09

Between:

P. Abdul ,  S/o. Dada Saheb,

H.No. 4-53-4, Pattikonda , Kurnool  District.                                     

     Complainant       

-Vs- 

The New India Assurance Company Limited ,Represented by its Branch Manager,

D.No. 19-19 , 20-21, Municipal Main Road, Adoni , Kurnool District.           

                   …Opposite Party

                            This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of K. Lokeswara Reddy ,  Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party  and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Smt. C.Preethi , Lady Member)

C.C.No.17/09

1.       This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S  12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on opposite party to pay Rs.40,000/- towards repair charges, Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony , Rs.10,000/- as costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the owner of the Auto bearing No. AP 21 X  - 6424 and the said  Auto is insured  with opposite party  and the said Auto met with accident  on 12-03-2008 and was  completely  damaged  and a case is  registered  in Pattikonda (PS) . On the claim   preferred  by the complainant ,  the opposite party  repudiated  on 30-07-2008 , on the ground  that the  driver  on the wheels  at the time  of the accident  was not  possessing three wheeler license  but the complainant  submits that  the driver  of the auto was possessing  valid  driving license  and alleges  deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party  in repudiating  his valid claim.

3..      In support of his claim the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) attested Xerox of policy issued  to the complainant , (2) cash memo  issued by Neelima  Automobiles to the complainant , (3) spare parts  cash bill dated 15-04-2008 issued by Friends auto  spares to the complainant , (4) repudiation letter dated 30-07-2008 , (5) photographs , (6) certified copy of FIR  issued by Pattikonda  (PS) (7) certified copy of charge sheet (8) accident report from  motor vehicles  inspection, besides to the sworn affidavit  of the complainant  in reiteration  of his complaint averments  and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A8 for its appreciation in this case.

4.       In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant , the opposite party  appeared through their standing  counsel and filed written version. 

5.       The written version of opposite party denies the complaint  as not maintainable either in law or on facts  and submits  that on receipt  of intimation  as to the accident  of auto of the complainant ,  the opposite party appointed  a surveyor  Sri. M. Purushotama Reddy and he conducted spot survey  on 22-03-2008 and thereafter  as the complainant  did not  turn up and submitted relevant  documents  such as quotation  or estimation of replaces , the claim  was not settled  and more so the driver  who was on the  wheels  on the date of  the accident  had no valid  and effective  driving license  to drive the auto rickshow transport  vehicle, as such the opposite party is not  liable to pay any compensation to the complainant  and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.       In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following document viz, (1) attested  copy of policy issued to the complainant , (2) certificate  of insurance issued to the complainant , (3) claim intimation letter dated 17-03-2008 ,(4) surveyors  report  dated 22-03-2008 , (5) repudiation  letter dated 30-07-2008 , besides  to the  sworn affidavit of the complainant  and the above document is  marked as Ex.B1 to B4 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged. 

7.       Hence , the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is  entitled  to .

8.       The main contention of the opposite party  is that the driver  on wheels  of the auto on the date of the accident  was not possessing valid and effective to drive the said auto in question . The opposite party  in their repudiation  letter dated 30-07-2008  ( Ex.A4/B5) stated the driver of the auto  Mr. Ghouse  has four wheeler  license  and the driver  requires three wheeler  license to driver the auto of the complainant  and thus there is  breach of policy terms and conditions . The opposite party  strongly  contended  that the license  of the driver  was not having an endorsement authorizing  him to drive  the auto of the complainant .

9.       To rebut the above contentions  of the opposite party the complainant did not  produce the  license  of Mr. Ghouse  and got it marked but only submitted  that license  possessed  by the driver  Mr. Ghouse  is valid  driving license  to drive the auto of the complainant . The policy  vide Ex.A1/B1 issued to the complainant  is for auto  and the opposite party  strongly  insists for auto  endorsement  licensed  persons only  are entitled  to drive the auto  , and the  policy also  insists  the driver should posses an effective  driving license  to drive the insured auto. No doubt the driver  Mr. Ghouse who was driving the said auto on the accident date  was having  a four wheeler  driving license  , the policy clearly insists for three wheeler driving license  . When once the driver was having a valid  license  to drive a particular  category  of vehicle  namely four wheeler , he is entitled  to drive  only four wheeler and that driver without having  an endorsement  or authorization  to an drive an auto  , cannot drive  the auto  of the complainant . Hence as it is clear  that driver of the  auto of the complainant is not having a valid driving license  to drive three  wheeler  of the complainant which  is clear violation of policy terms and conditions  and therefore  the complainant is not remaining entitled  to any of the  reliefs  and the complaint is dismissed.

10.     In the result , the complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the  1^st day of October,  2009.

         Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                          PRESIDENT(FAC)           MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :     Nil            For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: 

LADY MEMBER                 PRESIDENT (FAC)                  MALE MEMBER  

                                // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties           

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on              :