Date of Filing : 24.08.2010
Date of Order : 03.06.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 3rd JUNE 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 1984 / 2010
M/s. United Construction Co.,
#218, 1st Floor, 6th Block,
Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. R.Narayana & another, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
4th Floor, Leo Shopping Complex, 44/45,
Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore – 560 025.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office # 10,
# 213-217, Nagaprabhha Chambers,
3rd Main, 4th Cross, Chamrajpet,
Bangalore – 560 018.
(By Sri. G.S. Marulaiah, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are as under:
Complainant is a Construction Company and had insured its vehicle “Sonalika Tractor and Trailer” bearing Registration No. KA-05 / T-9553 with the OP vide Policy No. 423000-31-2009-12733 for the period from 20.01.2009 to 19.01.2010 for a sum of Rs.8,05,000/- by paying premium of Rs.10,873/-. On the said Tractor, a Crane was mounted for using at the construction site at Koramangala on 31.01.2009. The said Tractor met with an accident at the Site on 31.01.2009 when the mast of the Crane hit the Wall and got seriously damaged while being moved to another part of the said Site. The said information was furnished to the OP on 02.02.2009 to depute its Surveyor to inspect the Crane at the Site. Afterwards, Complainant made a claim with OP on 02.02.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,33,550/- towards cost of repairs of outer mast of the crane which was damaged. As per the Quotation dtd. 18.02.2009 submitted by the manufacturer i.e., Alfa Services, Bhawandi, the cost of the Outer Mast is Rs.96,000/- excluding labour charges for fitment & taxes which are extra. OP did not take any steps either to get the Crane repaired or settling the claim. After necessary repairs, Complainant has submitted the original Bills to the OP for settlement of the claim. But, even after repeated correspondence, the OP refused to settle the claim on the ground that the cause of the accident furnished by the Complainant is not relevant to the damages sustained by the Tractor. Hence, Complainant has filed this Complaint to direct the OP to make good of the loss sustained and other relief.
2. OPs have filed defence version stating that OP has issued Miscellaneous Class ‘D’ Package Insurance Policy bearing No. 423000/31/2009/12733 valid from 20.01.2009 to 19.01.2010 in respect of vehicle in question. The liability of the OP if any is subject to the terms & conditions of the Policy and provisions of M.V. Act regarding the RC, FC & Permit of the vehicle and the valid & effective DL held by the Driver of the said Tractor at the time of accident. OP has repudiated the claim of the Complainant on 09.04.10 stating that the cause of the accident furnished by the Complainant is not relevant to the damages sustained. Complainant has not lodged the Complaint before the jurisdictional Police about the accident which was occurred on 31.01.09 and it has failed to produce the relevant documents of the vehicle i.e., RC, FC, Permit & DL of the driver. The old policy expired on 02.09.2008 and the said Policy was obtained after a break of 4 months i.e., on 20.01.2009 and made false claim. Complainant has tried to repair the vehicle before the surveyor visiting the site. As per the statement made by the Driver, on 01.01.2009 the vehicle hit chejja of security room. When the Surveyor demanded for Log Book maintained for the Crane & RC of the Tractor, Complainant has failed to produce the same and not cooperated which clearly shows that the Complainant hiding the cause of the accident and the required documents. On the date of accident, the Driver of the vehicle did not have the valid Driving Licence to drive the Tractor on the date of accident so also there is no endorsement on his DL to drive the Tractor. Endorsement made in the DL is LMV & Motor Cycle and for Transport vehicle w.e.f. 26.08.2007 to 25.08.2010. There is a violation of the terms & conditions of the contract and provisions of M.V. Act. Hence, OP prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
3. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced the documents.
4. Arguments are heard.
5. The Points for consideration are as under:
(i) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP ?
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed?
(iii) If so, what is the relief?
REASONS
6. Admittedly Complainant had insured the Tractor & Trailer bearing Registration No. KA-05 / T-9553 with OP. The Policy covered for the period from 20.01.2009 to 19.01.2010. According to the Complainant, Tractor met with an accident on 31.01.2009. Complainant has put up the claim of Rs.1,33,550/- with the OP. OP repudiated the claim on the ground that cause of accident furnished by the Complainant is not relevant to the damages sustained by the vehicle. This reasoning gives no meaning at all. Except this reasoning, there are no grounds mentioned in the repudiation letter for repudiating the claim. Complainant has submitted claim form along with relevant documents to the OP for settlement of the claim. Complainant has also produced Bills to show that he has spent Rs.1,33,550/- towards repair of the said Tractor. In the defence version OP has stated that driver had no valid & effective Driving Licence to drive the Tractor. Therefore, claim is not admissible. This ground has been taken for the first time in the defence version. However, it can be looked into at this stage also. Complainant has produced copy of Driving Licence of the Driver. As per the Driving Licence, Driver had Licence to drive Motor Cycle without gear, Motor Cycle with gear, Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Goods Vehicle, Medium Passenger Motor Vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle & Transport Vehicle. The Driving Licence was valid from 2006 to 2026. The Learned Advocate for the OP argued that there is no mention of Tractor in the Driving Licence. Therefore, submitted that the Driver of the vehicle had no valid & effective Driving Licence and claim cannot be accepted. This argument cannot be accepted at all. As per the definition of the LMV under the M.V. Act, Sec. 2(21) of the Act defines LMV means Transport vehicle or Omni Bus, the gross weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs. By reading the above definition, certainly Tractor is also includes under the definition of LMV. Therefore, when the DL of Driver also includes LMV, it means the Driver was having valid & effective Driving Licence to drive the Tractor also. The Learned Counsel for the OP has relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Hariyana High Court reported in AIR 1998 Page 184. By going through the said ruling, the said judgement supports the case of the Complainant rather than the case of the OP. By the said judgement itself, it is made clear that the Tractor is LMV. Therefore, there is no merit in the defence of the OP that the Driver of the vehicle was not having an effective Driving Licence. The repudiation of the claim by the OP in this case is not justified at all. There are no valid reasons to repudiate the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP. Complainant having spent Rs.1,33,550/- towards repair of the vehicle, since the vehicle insured with the OP, OP is bound to pay the cost of repairs. Complaint deserves to be accepted. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs.1,33,550/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order. Complainant is also entitled for interest @ 6% P.A. on the above amount from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of payment.
Complainant is also entitled for Rs.1,000/- as costs of proceedings from the OP.
Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 3rd June 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
MEMBER MEMBER
SSS
