BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.



F.A. No. 625/2006 against C.D. 184/2004, Dist. Forum, Vijayawada



Between:



M/s. Navatha Road Transport

Rep. by its Partner

P. Ravi Kumar,

S/o. P. Subash Chandra Bose

Head Office : Bose Buildings

P.B. No. 912, Kanuru

Vijayawada-7. *** Appellant/

Complainant

And

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager

Opp. All India Radio, M.G. Road

Vijayawada . *** Respondent/

Opposite Party



Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. R. Chakradhar

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. T. Ramulu





HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

&

SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER



WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND NINE





ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)



***







The unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum rejecting its claim towards damages covered under the policy.

















2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a registered firm engaged in the business of transport of goods by road through one of its vehicles bearing No. AP 16U 7500 duly insured with the respondent for the period between 12.6.2002 and 11.6.2003. While so on 5.8.2002 when it was proceeding from Vijayawada to Adilabad and by the time it reached Echoda it met with an accident where the vehicle was damaged. It has promptly made a claim along with driving license and relevant record. Later it got it repaired by incurring Rs. 54,479/- evidenced under vouchers and submitted the claim. The insurance company repudiated it on the ground that the “Driving license is not valid”. It has appointed the driver after conducting driving test, verified his credentials with the licensing authorities. The repudiation was unjust and therefore claimed Rs. 54,479/- spent towards repairs besides compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.



3) The respondent insurance company resisted the claim. While denying each and every allegation made in the complaint, it alleged that the person who was driving the vehicle was not having valid and subsisting license. A surveyor was appointed immediately after receipt of the claim and he assessed the net loss at Rs. 29,000/- after deducting the salvage value. However, when verified from the licensing authorities at Vijaywada it was found that the particulars of driving license mentioned by the complainant relates to one Sri P. Venkanna, S/o. Valavaiah. It was valid till 16.3.2000. Since Sri V. Sambasiva Rao was not having valid driving license, the complainant was not entitled to the claim. It had violated the terms of the policy as well as M.V. Act and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



4) The complainant in proof of its case filed the affidavit evidence one of the partners and filed Exs. A1 to A44, while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Administrative Officer and filed Exs. B1 to B4.









5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the driver V. Sambasiva Rao who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having valid driving license. It was forged, therefore the complaint was dismissed.



6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have noticed that the driver was having experience besides that the driver was having a valid driving license. The Dist. Forum did not consider the decisions relied by it, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.





7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact and law and therefore liable to be set-aside?





8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant’s vehicle bearing No.

AP 16U 7500 was insured with the respondent evidenced under policy Ex. A1 covering the period from 12.6.2002 to 11.6.2003. When it met with an accident on 5.8.2002 it has informed the said fact to the insurance company which in turn appointed a surveyor, who among other things assessed the loss at Rs. 30,130/-. He assessed the net loss at Rs. 29,000/- after deducting salvage value. The complainant had undoubtedly incurred an amount of Rs. 54,479/- evidenced under bills Exs. A21 to A30. The insurance company addressed a letter to the licensing authority which on verification opined that the license relates to one Sri P. Venkanna, S/o. Valavaiah and not that of V. Sambasiva Rao as alleged by the complainant vide endorsement Ex. B2. Basing on which the insurance company repudiated the claim under Ex. A31 letter.









9) Evidently, the complainant while admitting the driver into service obtained a xerox copy of driving license Ex. A8, and Ex. A9 got it verified from Additional Licensing Authority, Khammam. By letter Dt. 9.12.2002 under Ex. A10 the Additional Licensing Authority, Khammam confirmed that the license relates to V. Sambasiva Rao and he was having heavy motor vehicles license and the same was renewed till 9.4.2004.



10) The complainant while making the claim enclosed a copy of the driving license furnished to it to the insurance company. The surveyor sought for verification of driving license by addressing a letter to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada vide Ex. B1. The licensing authority after verifying the same found that it relates to one “P. Venkanna, S/o. Valavaiah”. The driving license verification report is Ex. B2.



11) It is very important to note that while Sri Sambasiva Rao, the driver of the complainant had driving license bearing No. 1296/KM/1989. The surveyor sought the driving license particulars pertaining to No. 1296/VJA/1989. In other words, while the driver of the complainant had obtained the driving license from Khammam Office, the surveyor had mistakenly sought for particulars from Vijayawada region. May be the driving license bears the same number but however the officers or places differ. Naturally it could not have been the particulars of complainant’s driver. Basing on mistaken particulars furnished in the light of the letter of the surveyor, the claim of the complainant was rejected. This is unjust and illegal. In the first instance the insurance company ought to have verified the particulars from the office of Licensing Authority at Khammam. When the complainant’s driver obtained the driving license from the Licensing Authority at Khammam, the insurance company could not have sought for particulars from Vijayawada Office. Undoubtedly, there would be a discrepancy. The complainant could establish that the driving license is genuine in view of the very certificate issued by the Licensing Authority at Khammam vide Ex. A10. Therefore the repudiation of claim on the said ground is unjust.



12) It is not in dispute that the vehicle was met with an accident and the same was informed to the insurance company and got the vehicle repaired with automobiles at Vijayawada and in all spent Rs. 54,479/- evidenced under bills Exs. A21 to A30. The contention that the driver was not having valid driving license and therefore the complainant was not entitled to the amount and the decisions thereof in Lalchand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2006 ACJ 2161 (SC) relied has no relevance. When on facts the complainant could prove that the driver was having a valid driving license the decision relied for repudiating the claim has no relevance. More over the decision pertains to a third party claim. Sri B.R. K. Reddy, a Surveyor & Loss Assessor who was appointed to assess the loss, while admitting that the vehicle was damaged and the complainant got it repaired, for inexplicable reasons, assessed the net loss at Rs. 29,000/-. He could have filed his affidavit evidence in order to know as to why he ignored the bills filed by the complainant. The complainant submitted the cash bills, vouchers, receipts etc. Therefore picking and choosing some of the bills and deducting some salvage value would not hold good. He has to give the basis for his deduction. No doubt the salvage value could be deducted but deducting at Rs. 1,130/- is without any basis. The respondent cannot evade payment of amount which the complainant had actually incurred. The complainant could prove by filing the documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Therefore the repudiation of claim is unjust. This is one of the cases where the insurance company bent upon refusing the claim, dragged on the matter and sought the particulars of different driving license, than that of the complainant driver. It mislead the Fora for arriving at a wrong conclusion. Therefore it is liable to pay compensation towards mental harassment.













13) Since the Dist. Forum did not consider the certificate Ex. A10, it was wrongly opined that the driver was not having genuine driving license. The decision pertaining to the driver not holing genuine driving license is not applicable to decide the point in issue.



14) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum, consequently the complaint is allowed in part. The respondent insurance company is directed to pay Rs. 54,479/- together with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- besides costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.





1) _______________________________

PRESIDENT







2) ________________________________

MEMBER







3) _________________________________

MEMBER

Dt. 22. 07. 2009.