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 24^th  day of September, 2009

C.C. 13/09

Between:

Syed Meer Jaleel, S/o. Syed Meer Mohiddin,

R/o.H.No.15/52,Zanda Rastha Street, Atmakur , Kurnool - 518 422.  

                                        …Complainant

-Vs-

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ,Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

D.No.40/383,1^st Floor Bhupal complex, Kurnool-518 001,                

                …Opposite Party

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.Azmathulla,  Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. N.Isaiah ,  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.13/09

1.     This consumer complaint  of the complainant is filed U/S  11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000 with 18%  interest p.a , Rs.1,00,,000/-  for  mental agony  ,Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation ,  cost of the compliant and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.     The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 6357 and the said lorry was insured with opposite party vide policy bearing No.433100/31/ 2008/3720  and  the  policy  was   in  force  from    19-10-2007  to 18-10-2008 . On 21-07-2008  at 11-30 P.M the said lorry met with an accident in Cuttack District of Orissa State and the said lorry was damaged heavily and the same was informed to opposite party  and submitted claim form and a surveyor  Ramesh Babu was appointed to conduct survey . On submitting a claim , the opposite party    repudiated the   claim on 26-11-2008  stating that the driving license  possessed by driver  on the date of accident  is no genuine  one and it is not valid. But the complainant submits that he did not violated the conditions knowingly well that the driving license is a fake. Hence, there is no violation of policy terms and conditions and the repudiation by opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency of service  on part of opposite party .

3.     In support of their case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of Registration Certificate for vehicle No. AP21 W6357 (2) Insurance certificate / cum Policy No.433100/31/2008/3720.,(3) Estimate for the accident vehicle issued by the S. Ajmathulla Auto Engineering & Mechanical Works (4) repudiation letter dt.26-11-2008 (5) Xerox copy of Driving license No.DLRAP 12159372006, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant  in reiteration of their complaint averments and the above documents are marked  as Ex.A1 and A5 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.

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 contested the case by filling  written version.

5.     The written version of opposite party denies the complaint  as not maintainable either in law or on facts  and admits that the lorry bearing No. AP 21 W 6357 of complainant  was insured with them . It also submits that after intimation  of accident, the opposite party appointed a surveyor  to assess the damages and the said surveyor  assessed the damages to Rs. 97,000/- against the claim of the complainant  of Rs.4,50,000/- . After completion of all formalities  it was found that the driver of the lorry at the time of accident was not having a valid  driving license  and it is clear violation of  policy terms and conditions and Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules and hence the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26-11-2008. Hence , there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party in repudiating the claim and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any relief and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint.

6.     In support of their case the opposite party relied on the following documents viz, (1) Survey Report (final) of S.Ramesh Babu. (2) Letter dt.27-9-2008 of Regional Trans Port Officer, Nandyal to OP. , besides to the  sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B2 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged. The opposite party also relied on the evidence of RW.1 A.Narashimha Reddy .

7.     Hence , the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled  alleging deficiency of service ?

8.     It the case of the complainant  that he  owns a  lorry bearing No.AP21W 6357 and the said lorry was insured  with opposite party vide Ex.A2. The Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of policy No. 433100/31 / 2008 /3720  issued  to  the  complainant  and the said policy is valid from  19-10-2007 to 18-11-2008 . On 21-07-2008  at 11-30 P.M the said lorry met with  accident and was badly damaged. The accident  was informed  to opposite party  and a surveyor  was appointed  and the complainant  submitted claim form. But the opposite party repudiated  the claim vide Ex.A4. The Ex.A4  is the repudiation letter dated 26-11-2008  of opposite party addressed  to the complainant ,  where in , it was stated that  the driver Mr. S.K. Basha employed by the complainant holding driving license  No. DLRAP 12159372006 issued by RTA Nandyal and on  verification with RTA Nandyal , it was confirmed  that the said driving license  is not issued by RTA Nandyal and the said license is a fraudulent license  and hence the complainant  is not entitled to any amount , hence the claim of the complainant  is repudiated . .

9.     The opposite party in support  of their case got examined on oath  A.Narasihma Reddy, RTO Nandyal as RW.1. The said RW.1 stated that the driving license bearing No. DLRAP 12159372006 of S.K.Basha was not issued by their office. The counsel for opposite party strongly contended that on the basis of evidence of RW.1 ,one thing is clear that the driving license issued to S.K.Basha is  fake one and hence the complainant  is not remaining  entitled to any of the reliefs  under the policy and justified the repudiation made by the Insurance company.

10.    On the other hand  the counsel for complainant strongly  contended that  even if the  driving license  is fake there is nothing on record to show that the  complainant was aware  about the  fakeness  of the license. For this argument , primary reliance  was placed  on the observations of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Laxmi Narian Dhut reported in III (2007) CPJ Pg.13, where in it was held that  when original  license  was fake one, renewal could not cure inherent fatality.

11.    It was further held by the Apex Court that when once a license  is fake on renewal  cannot take away the effect of fake license  and no doubt that a fake license cannot  get its forgery out fit  stripped  off merely on account of  some officer  renewing the  same with or without knowing  it to be forged. No licensing  authority has the power  to renew a fake license  and therefore, a renewal  if at all made cannot transform  a fake license as genuine .

12.    In the light of the above decision  of Apex Court the decision cited by the complainant reported in 2007 (1) CPR Pg.327 (National Commission )  has little relevancy for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party also cited a decision  reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court Pg.2008, has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

13.    To sum up , the above discussions and relying  on the supra decision  of Apex Court, in the present case originally the license was a fake one and by renewing it cannot  cure the inherent  fatality , hence the  repudiation  by opposite parties  on the ground that at the relevant  time of the accident the lorry was not  driven by a driver having valid  driving license , is justified and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the relief and the complaint is dismissed without costs.

14.    In the result , the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 24^th day of September, 2009.

        Sd/-                                  Sd/-                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                      PRESIDENT(FAC)        MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :  Nil           For the opposite parties :

                                           RW.1  Deposition of RW-1dated 01-07-09.

(A.Narasimha Reddy, R.T.O.Nandyal)

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: 

Ex.X1.          Letter addressed to President , District Consumer Forum, Kurnool issued by RTO , Nandyal , dt: 12-05-2009.

             Sd/-                              Sd/-                                        Sd/-

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          :