Date of filing: 22-12-2016 Date of order : 21-7-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Friday, 21st day of July 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 91 / 2016
K. Ramamohan, S/o K. Ramana, aged about 40 years,
Hindu, owner of the TATA ACE bearing No. AP04 T U : 4447,
Residing at Nallaguttapalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal,
Kadapa District. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D.No. 2/194-2,
Dhobi Ghat Road, Lakshmiranga Theatre Road, Kadapa. ….. Opposite party.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 14-7-2017 in the presence of Sri J. Sudarsana Reddy, Advocate for Complainant and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for Opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs. 1,50,260/- being the own damages to the accident vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. from 11-4-2014 till realization, to pay Rs. 20,000/- for deficiency in service and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows. The Complainant is the owner of the vehicle TATA ACE bearing No. AP 04 TU : 4447 insured with the opposite party for the period from 13-2-2014 to 12-2-2015 under policy No. 050982/31/13/01/00001573. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 11-4-2014 at about 8.45 a.m on Kurnool – Mydukur high way road, near Sreenagaram at Mydukuru. The Complainant informed the accident immediately to the opposite party, who appointed surveyor and conducted the spot survey and assessed the loss immediately. The Complainant submitted all relevant documents viz., FIR, insurance policy, Registration certificate, permit, driving license and other documents for settlement of the claim for own damages of the vehicle. Opposite party also appointed surveyor for final survey and surveyor submitted his final report, but opposite party neither settled the claim nor returned the claim as repudiated. Thus the Complainant complied all formalities and personally approached the Divisional Manager of the opposite party and the Branch Manager of the opposite party at Rayachoty. He was informed that the opposite party closing his claim file since the vehicle is goods carrying vehicle and the driver has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The close of the Complainant’s claim by opposite party is unjust and not tenable. He is bound to take decision within reasonable period. But opposite party gave repudiation letter after 2 ½ years. Thus the repudiation is not genuine and not bonafide. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, Therefore, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. opposite party filed written version admitting that the Complainant is owner of the vehicle and insured the same with their company for the period from 13-2-2014 to 12-2-2015 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 11-4-2014 and the same was intimated to them and surveyor was appointed to conduct spot survey and final surveyor has assessed net loss of Rs. 77,000/- after salvages but denied other allegations. It is further averred that at the time of accident on 11-4-2014 one K. Vijayabhaskar was driving the insured vehicle and the driver has only LMV non – transport tractor – trailer driving license only and the insured vehicle is goods carriage vehicle and the driver must possess transport driving license to drive the same. Thus the driver of the accident vehicle of the Complainant had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the opposite party repudiated his claim for own damages under letter dt. 18-10-2016. There is no intentional latches on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim. No deficiency in service on their part, after through enquiry only claim has been repudiated. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P as pleaded by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims from Opposite party as prayed for?
- To what relief?
5. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties but on behalf of Complainant Exs. A1 to A3 are marked and on behalf of Opposite party Exs. B1 to B5 documents are marked.
6. Heard arguments on both sides.
7. Point Nos. I & II Learned counsel for Complainant contended that the opposite party admitted the accident vehicle was insured and has valid insurance on the date of accident but contended that the driver has no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle. However, the driver had valid driving license under Ex. B1 to B3 to drive the accident vehicle which is Light Motor Vehicle. Therefore, repudiation of claim by opposite party amounts to deficiency in service as such the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs.
8. Per contra learned counsel for opposite party contended that accident vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle and the driver must possess transport driving license to drive the same as per Exs. B2 & B3. The driver has only L.M.V non-transport. Thus the Complainant violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy under Ex. A2. Therefore, the claim was repudiated rightly and no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and Complainant is not entitled for any relief and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for Complainant relied on Chakali Swaroopa and others Vs. Mohd. Ghouse and another, 2016 ACJ 383. In the above case the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held the driving skill required to drive L.M.V non-transport and L.M.V transport is one and the same and driver who had license to drive L.M.V can also drive L.M.V transport and the same does not amount to fundamental breach of policy to so as to absolve insurance company from liability.
10. In the light of above judgement Hon’ble High Court of A.P. now we have to see whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in repudiating the claim of Complainant. There is no dispute in this case that the Complainant is owner of accident vehicle and he insured the same for the period from 13-2-2014 to 12-2-2015 with the opposite party and the same vehicle met with an accident on 11-4-2014. After the accident the Complainant immediately informed the same to the opposite party and the opposite party also appointed surveyor to assess the damage caused to the insured vehicle and surveyor submitted final report estimating the damage at Rs. 77,000/- as per Ex. B4 filed by opposite party, but repudiated the claim under Ex. B5 on 18-10-2016 stating that the driver had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident.
12. Admittedly, the Complainant’s vehicle met with accident is a goods carrying vehicle and also L.M.V. The driver of Complainant had driving license to drive LMV non-transport. However, the vehicle of Complainant being TATA ACE which is light motor vehicle though carrying goods comes under the definition of Light Motor vehicle only. The driver of the Complainant’s vehicle had driving license to drive the transport vehicle. The skill to drive LMV as per the above decision is one and the same both for transport and non – transport of L.M. vehicles. Therefore, in this case the driver who had LMV non-transport can also drive LMV transport vehicle of Complainant, as such the opposite party cannot absolve its liability on the ground that the Complainant violated policy terms and conditions. As such, we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim of Complainant.
13. Coming to the quantum of amount claimed by the Complainant, according to him his vehicle got damaged to the tune of Rs. 1,50,260/- but the Complainant has not filed any record to prove the same. However, the opposite party filed Ex. B4 final survey report dt. 28-8-2014 assessing the damages caused to the accident vehicle at Rs. 77,000/-. Since, the surveyor was appointed by the opposite party and he estimated the damages of Rs. 77,000/-, We hold that the Complainant is entitled for Rs. 77,000/- as damages caused to the vehicle in the accident, apart from Rs. 2,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. Accordingly, points I & II are answered.
14. Point No. III. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 77,000/- (Rupees seventy seven thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 22-12-2016 i.e. date of filing of the complaint till realization and shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim of the Complainant is dismissed, without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 21st day of July 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of FIR, dt. 11-4-2014.
Ex. A2 P/c of insurance policy, dt. 13-2-2014.
Ex. A3 P/c of letter dt. 8-10-2016 issued by Opposite party.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party: -
Ex. B1 Goods carriage public carriers other than three wheeler package policy under the policy No. 050982/31/12/01/00001573 for the period from 13-2-2014 to 12-2-2105.
Ex. B2 P/c of driving license pertaining to K. Viajay Bhaskar.
Ex. B3 Original D.L. extract issued by additional license authority, Kadapa.
Ex. B4 Original final survey report dt. 28-8-2014.
Ex. B5 Original repudiation letter dt. 18-10-2016.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri J. Sudarsan Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for opposite party.
B.V.P
