CC Filed on 11.12.2009<br /> Disposed on 16.08.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 16th day of August 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 191/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Srinivasappa. H.T.,<br /> No.24, Matnahalli Village,<br /> Sugutur Post,<br /> Kolar Taluk and District.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. N. Arunkumar & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> The New India Assurance Company Limited,<br /> 2nd Floor, Bagalur Mansion,<br /> Big Bazar, <br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B. Kumar & others)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay the estimated cost of Rs.3,62,995/- towards repairs of the vehicle with interest, costs and compensation. <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is the R.C. Owner of the New Sonalika (Rhino) Car worth Rs.5,50,000/- bearing registration No. KA-07-7282. The said vehicle was insured with OP for the period from 28.07.2008 to 27.07.2009. It was a comprehensive policy. <br /> <br /> The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.10.2008 at about 11 p.m. near Choradi bridge on Sagar-Shimoga Road and it was extensively damaged. A complaint was lodged on 16.10.2008 before jurisdictional Kumsi Police Station. It is alleged that the PDS Motors a reputed repairer of vehicle in Bangalore estimated the cost for repair at Rs.3,62,995/-. On the request of OP the PDS Motors submitted another revised estimate for Rs.1,46,626/- for repair and replace of the damaged parts. It is alleged that the OP did not settle the claim of complainant inspite of furnishing the bills issued by the repairer and furnishing other details asked by OP. Therefore the present complaint is filed.<br /> <br /> 3. OP appeared and filed its version. The issue of comprehensive insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle is not disputed. It is contended that the net loss assessment was Rs.1,46,824/- but not the amount claimed by complainant. It is mainly contended that one Mahesh.S S/o. Shivanna. T of Bangalore was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident and he was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Therefore it is contended that the complainant is not entitled to reimbursement of any loss as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The parties filed affidavits and the documents in respect of their contentions. <br /> <br /> 5. Heard the Learned Counsel for parties.<br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether the driver Mahesh. S was having valid <br /> driving licence at the time of accident to drive<br /> the vehicle in question?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: To what order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the materials on record and the zerox copy of the D.L. of Mahesh. S produced today our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: In the complaint it is not alleged whether the person who was driving the vehicle had any valid driving licence. The OP contended the complainant has not produced original D.L. inspite of repeated requests for verification. Further the OP had produced zerox copy of the D.L. relating to Mahesh. S. That copy of D.L. shows that the driver Mahesh was having D.L. for driving motorcycle with gear from 17.05.2006 to 16.05.2026 and there is an endorsement authorizing the driver to drive autorickshaw from 08.11.2006. This D.L. copy shows that there was no endorsement to drive LMV. <br /> <br /> The arguments were heard on 03.08.2010 and the case was posted for orders by today i.e. 16.08.2010. Today the complainant has produced the zerox copy of the driving licence. Earlier on 21.06.2010 the complainant had produced true copy of the driving licence in a different form. These two copies of driving licence contained different facts and figures. The OP has produced a zerox copy of driving licence that does not tally with all entries made in the zerox copies of driving licences produced by complainant. <br /> <br /> The OP alleged that the complainant had not furnished the original driving licence inspite of repeated requests. Therefore it appears the OP had not yet communicated its final decision regarding the settlement of claim. The verification of original driving licence may become necessary in view of the conflicting entries shown in different copies of D.L. produced by the rival parties. <br /> <br /> <br /> Therefore we think in the circumstance of the case we cannot finally decide whether the driver had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Therefore point No.1 is kept open. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: For the reasons stated above appropriate direction may be given to the parties as per final order. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The OP shall take a decision on the claim of complainant and shall issue a notice in writing to complainant to produce such original documents as may be necessary for taking a decision. The said decision shall be taken within 30 days from the date of receipt of the documents called for. The parties shall bear their own costs in this proceedings. <br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />