A. Ramesh Babu, S/o. Bala Swamy,R/o. Mangapuram Village, Thallada Mandal - Complainant(s)
Versus
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Manager., Khammam. - Opp.Party(s)
Kondapally Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate, Khammam.
29 Oct 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/28
A. Ramesh Babu, S/o. Bala Swamy,R/o. Mangapuram Village, Thallada Mandal
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Manager., Khammam.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 29th day of October, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.28 of 2009 Between: A.Ramesh Babu, s/o.Bala Swamy, age: 28 years, occu: Owner of the auto bearing No.AP 20 X 991, r/o.Mangapuram village, Thallada Mandal of Khammam District. Complainant And The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Old Club road, Khammam town and District. Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.B.Gangadhar, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of auto bearing No.AP-20-X-991 and had taken policy from the opposite party vide policy bearing No.610902/31/07/01/00020590 valid from 13-3-2008 to 12-3-2009. The complainant used to drive the auto for his livelihood. That on 4-10-2008 at 10-30 hours while the complainant was proceeding towards Thalada side with passengers, in the meanwhile one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-2864 of Sathupally depot being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash from behind the auto, as a result the auto dashed one another auto. Due to which the occupants of the auto and complainant sustained bleeding injuries and one person by name Raviri Basavaiah died while undergoing the treatment. The auto of the complainant was totally damaged. Though the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC. Bus driver. Due to the influence made by the RTC authorities, he himself gave a complaint to the police. Basing on which a case is registered against the complainant under section 337 and 304-A I.P.C. Later the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to pay the damages caused to the said auto and furnished documents along with repair bills, copy of F.I.R. and driving licence. But the opposite party bluntly refused to pay the same. On 7-1-2009 the opposite party addressed a letter to the complainant in which it is mentioned that the complainant was not holding driving licence as on the date of accident i.e. on 4-10-2008 and repudiated the claim. On that the complainant got issued legal notice. Even then there was no response from the opposite party. Due to the damage caused to the auto in the accident, he lost source of income of Rs.35,000/- for the past 6 months and also submitted estimation of spare parts and mechanic bills for a sum of Rs.65,185/-. Though the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident and the complainant is having valid driving licence even then the claim was not settled. Hence, this complaint. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party appeared through his counsel and filed the counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint. In the counter, it is submitted that as per F.I.R. the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of complainant, as a result of the said accident, one Ravuri Basavaiah died and some other passengers sustained injuries. It is further submitted that the said auto of the complainant is a commercial passengers carrying auto. One can drive the said auto by holding the transport licence endorsement. As per the endorsement the Additional Licencing Authority, Khammam, the complainant was holding auto rickshaw non transport licence from 14-5-2004 to 5-10-2011 and he is authorized to drive auto rickshaw transport from 2-8-2005 to 1-8-2008 and his transport endorsement driving licence auto rickshaw renewal was made on 6-10-2008 which is in force up to 5-10-2011. The alleged accident took place on 4-10-2008, by the time of accident the complainant was not holding transport endorsement auto rickshaw driving licence and he was holding non-transport endorsement. Therefore he is not authorized to drive commercial passengers auto. Having fully known with licence conditions, the complainant drove the auto without having valid and effective driving licence and violated the terms and conditions of the policy, which amounts to breach of contract. Therefore, the opposite party had sent repudiation letter to the complainant on 7-1-2009 on the ground that the complainant was not holding valid driving licence as such his claim is repudiated. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint. Apart from the complaint, the complainant filed an affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint and also filed the following documents. i) Photocopy of policy, dt.12-3-2008 ii) Photocopy of driving licence, dt.13-5-2004 iii) Photocopy of bills (2) for Rs.11,786/- iv) Photocopy of tinkering bill for Rs.64,185/- v) Photocopy of the FIR in Cr.No.97/2008 of P.S.Wyra vi) Letter issued by the opposite party, dt.7-1-2009 vii) Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant, dt.10-2-2009 viii) Receipt issued by the professional couriers. ix) Photocopy of the acknowledgment issued by the professional couriers On the other hand on behalf of the opposite party, it got examined the Administrative Officer of R.T.A. office, Khammam, as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1, extract of driving licence of the complainant. On behalf of the complainant and opposite party, no written arguments filed. Heard the oral arguments from both sides. Now the points that arose for consideration are 1) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim the damages caused to the auto? 2) To what relief? Point No.1: It is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of auto bearing No. AP 20 X 991. It is also not in dispute that the said auto was insured with the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the said auto met with accident and due to which the inmates of the auto sustained injuries and the auto was totally damaged in the accident. The only dispute is now with regard to holding of driving licence as on the date of accident. The learned counsel for opposite party vehemently argued and submitted that the complainant was having valid driving licence, non-transport licence from 14-5-2004 to 5-10-2011 and he is authorized to drive non-transport auto rickshaw and he got endorsement of the transport authorities to drive transport auto rickshaw from 2-8-2005 to 1-8-2008 and his transport endorsement licence was renewed on 6-10-2008, which is in force up to 5-10-2011. Whereas the alleged accident taken place on 4-10-2008, it is clear that as on the date of accident, the complainant was not holding transport endorsement driving licence and he was holding non transport endorsement driving licence and therefore he is not authorized to drive commercial passengers trolley auto, which is meant for transportation of public. On this aspect of the case is concerned, it got examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1. In his evidence R.W.1 has categorically stated that he is working as Administrative officer, RTA office, Khammam and produced driving licence of complainant issued by Additional Licencing Authority marked as Ex.B.1. This Ex.B.1 issued on 14-5-2004 and as per Ex.B.1 the complainant was authorized to drive the auto rickshaw non-transport valid from 14-5-2004 to 13-5-2024. Later on 22-8-2005 he got transport endorsement licence for his auto rickshaw, which is valid up to 1-8-2008. As on the date of accident i.e. 4-10-2008 the complainant was not holding driving licence to drive transport auto rickshaw. He should not drive the transport auto rickshaw. R.W.1 was not even cross-examined by counsel for complainant. The case of the insurance company is that the complainant has possessed the licence to drive non-transport vehicle and he therefore could not have driven transport vehicle in the absence of necessary endorsement as required, therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable. In this case it is on record that there is endorsement of transport authorities wherein the complainant was authorized to drive transport vehicle from 2-8-2005 to 1-8-2008, whereas it was renewed from 6-10-2008 onwards and accident in this case has taken place on 4-10-2008 as on the date of accident, the complainant was not having driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. Though the complainant was having effective driving licecne to ply non-transport vehicle he could not have plied transport vehicle. The documents on record go to show that the licence issued in favour of the driver to ply a particular type of vehicle he could not have plied other vehicle and the insurance company cannot be held liable if there was breach of that condition. In the case on hand all the documents clearly go to show that the vehicle, which met with accident was transport vehicle. In fact the complainant was holding licence to ply non-transport vehicle, he could not have plied the vehicle in question. It is a clear case that the vehicle, which met with accident was transport vehicle, whereas the complainant was authorized to drive a non-transport vehicle. In this particular case though there is endorsement by the transport authorities to drive the transport vehicle from 1-5-2008 to 2-5-2008 and it was renewed on 6-10-2008, whereas the accident has taken place on 4-10-2008 on which date the complainant was not having valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle. Though the complainant has obtained endorsement by which he was entitled to ply transport vehicle, but it was not renewed as on the date of accident. In the light of relevant documentary evidence, we hold that the vehicle, which met with accident was a transport vehicle, though there was endorsement as required by Section (3) of the Act, as on the date of accident it was not renewed. Therefore the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 29th day of October, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM KHAMMAM Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for complainant: - None- Witnesses examined for opposite party: R.W.1 S.Komaraiah, Administrative officer, RTA office, Khammam Exhibits marked for complainant: - Nil - Exhibits marked for opposite party: Ex.B.1 - Extract of driving licence PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
