THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH).
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1820/2012
Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Regional Office at No.28,
East Wing, 4th Floor, Centenary Building,
M.G.Road, Bangalore,
By its Deputy Manager Legal.
……….Appellants.
(By Shri/Smt. H.S.Lingaraju, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Mahadevappa, A/a 41 years,S/o Dandanagouda Goudar,
Agriculturists and Businessman,
R/o Muradi, Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District.
(By Shri/Smt. Lakshmi Pathi, D.G., Adv.,)
:ORDERS:
BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated:03/08/2012 passed by Bagalkot District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.65/2012.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
Complainant purchased the Mahindra Maxximo Load Carrier - a Light Goods Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-29-A-3092 on 22.02.2011. He was purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance of the M & M Finance Service Limited, Bagalkot. The said vehicle insured with O.P. on 29/08/2011. When the vehicle was on the road, the driver by name Vittal S/o Mallappa Kamadal while proceedings towards Benakatti, it met with accident, wherein the said vehicle was damaged. This fact was intimated to Rural Police Station, Bagalkot, who in turn registered the case and after investigation filed a charge sheet. The complainant took the vehicle to Bhagirathi Automobiles, Bijapur for repair. They estimated the loss caused to the vehicle at Rs.1,00,000/-. Whereas, STAR BALCKSMITH WORK, Hubli estimated the cost of repair at Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter the complainant got repaired the said vehicle; when he presented the claim petition along with necessary documents, Opposite Party repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds. Therefore the complainant was forced to file this complaint.
4. After receipt of notice, OP appeared through their counsel and filed the objections. OP denied the allegations made by the complainant and whereas the OP admitted existence of the policy and also accident. According to the case, the driver of the vehicle was not having driving license at the time of accident. Therefore, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim, which is in accordance of terms of the policy and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. After trial, the District Commission, Bagalkot allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-
6. We have heard the arguments from appellant. In spite of sufficient opportunities granted to the respondent, the respondent has not argued the mater.
7. The appellant has filed two IAs along with affidavits. The appellant submitted that there is a delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal, but it was caused neither intentionally nor deliberate but for bonafide reasons such as on receipt of the papers it was referred to our panel advocate before the State Commission who also concurring with the opinion of the dealing advocate suggested the company to agitate the matter in appeal and on receipt of the opinion, the file was sent to Head Office at Mumbai informing them about the legal opinion in the matter and on receipt of their concurrence, the file was sent to our advocate to prefer an appeal who sought for additional documents and papers from the dealing advocate and on obtaining the same from the dealing advocate, the file was sent to our advocate for preferring an appeal and prays to allow the IA. The respondent filed the objection to I.A.-I for delay condonation.
8. Heard the arguments from appellant side on I.A. The appellant is a company. Hence, the reasons narrated in the affidavit are true and believable. Hence, IA filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay is hereby allowed on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-.
9. Perused the contentions of the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Bagalkot, we noticed that there is no dispute that the respondent is the owner of Mahindra Maxximo Load Carrier bearing registration No.KA-29-A-3092 (LGV) and the said vehicle was insured with the Appellant for the period from 22.02.2011 to 21.02.2012. The vehicle was damaged in the road traffic accident that occurred on 29.08.2011 while proceedings towards Benakatti. The respondent lodged an O.D. claim in that regard. The, appellant arranged for survey and investigation. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.58,147.44. It is also admitted that the Appellant repudiated the claim since the driver of the said vehicle was not having a valid and effective D.L. to drive the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was having D.L. to drive only LMV (NT) and he was not having any specific endorsement to drive the Transport vehicle.
10. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, Bagalkot. The District Commission after perused the materials on record came to the conclusion that the vehicle is Light Goods Vehicle of laden weight is 1800 and the Licensing Authority, Bagalkot issued an endorsement stating that Sri. Vittal S/o Mallappa Kamadal was holding a license to drive the LMV (NT) with effect from 22.09.2008 to 13.02.2026. Hence, as per the District Commission, the driver has valid and effective license at the time of accident. However, the appellant repudiated the claim of the Respondent on the ground that the Respondent was having D.L. to drive only LMV (NT) and he was not having any specific endorsement to drive the Transport Vehicle.
11. Now the point of issue before us is only that whether the driver holding LMV(NT) can drive the Light Goods Vehicle without having specific endorsement to drive the Transport Vehicle?
12. In our opinion, Light Motor Vehicle driving license holders can now drive any LMV under transport category vehicle (Goods and Passenger) like Mini-Bus, Mine-Truck, Taxi, Auto-Rickshaw, Light Commercial Vehicles and others without specific endorsement on the Driveling License. Hence, the conclusion of District Commission that the driver has valid and effective license at the time of accident is right and justified in our opinion also.
13. Moreover, the appellant contended in his appeal memo that after the accident, the appellant arranged for survey and after survey and investigation, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.58,147.44. The District Commission exhibited the investigation report as Ex.R2, but not appreciated the contention of the Opposite Party and also not made any discussion in its order about the surveyor and his report. The appellant cannot deny their liability stating that the respondent was not having valid license at the time of accident. This type of tendencies to resist the claims on such a flimsy grounds by exploiting greater capacity of insurance companies to legitimate long period of time amounts to harassment to the persons/insured. In spite of settling the matter as per the survey report at initial stage, the appellant repudiated the claim on flimsy ground amount to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
14. The complainant produced the receipts towards the repair of the vehicle issued by Bhagirathi Automobiles, Bijapur, which were not authenticated in our opinion. Hence, appreciating the contention of Opposite Party in his objection and appeal memo that the appellant arranged for survey and investigation, it is just and proper to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.58,147/- along with interest to meet the ends of justice, because surveyor is a third party who is independent from the influence of the insurer and insured. Hence, in this regard, a modification is required to the impugned order. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:O R D E R:
The impugned order dated:03/08/2012 passed by the District Commission Bagalkot in C.C.No.65/2012 is modified as under:-
The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.58,147/- together with interest @ 6% PA from the date of order passed by the District Commission till realization along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
The appellant is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as ordered by this Commission to the complainant before the District Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed-off.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the Respondent/complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
