Date of filing: 4-5-2017 Date of order : 8-11-2017
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
Wednesday, 8th day of November, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 26 / 2017
Pullagura Venkata Seshaiah,
S/o Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 60 years,
Owner of Maruthi Ertiga Motor Car bearing No.AP-11-AT-5562,
R/a D.No.6-749, Yasoda Nursing Home,
Sankarapuram, Kadapa. … Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Dwaraka Towers, 7 Roads,
kadapa City. ….. Opposite party.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 31-10-2017 in the presence of Sri T. Venkata Ramanaiah, 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 Sri 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 an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards spare parts bills, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages for negligence, and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with interest and costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows :-
The complainant is the owner of the Maruthi Ertiga model bearing No.AP-11-AT-5562 and he insured the said vehicle with O.P. and O.P. issued policy No.0509043116p109759084, and the policy was in force at the time of accident on 19-11-2016. At the time of accident the complainant was going in his car and the vehicle met with an accident near Central Prison, Kadapa on Kadapa -Tirupathi Main Road. He informed the accident to the O.P. and O.P. told to shift the vehicle to Maruthi Authorized Service Station beside Padmasali Kalyanamandapam and the same was shifted. There after the complainant submitted claim to the O.P. intimating all facts. The O.P. surveyor came and visited the vehicle and submitted report to O.P. The complainant submitted bills amounting to Rs.50,000/- for the settlement of the claim but O.P. did not pay the same on the other hand O.P. repudiated the claim by letter dt. 22-2-2017. Hence this complaint for the above reliefs.
3. O.P. filed written version denying the allegations in the complaint and called upon the complainant to prove all of them. Further O.P. admitted the complainant is the owner of the accident vehicle and he insured the same with O.P. for the period from 25-10-2016 to 24-10-2017 under private car package policy.
4. It is further averred on intimation about the accident they send the surveyor and surveyor assessed the net loss of the vehicle at Rs.15,196/- after salvages. It is further contended by the O.P. the complainant who was the driving the vehicle at the time of accident has no driving license on the date of accident and his driving license was expired on 12-9-2016 and it was renewed on 7-2-2017, so the driver of the accident vehicle did not possess any driving license on the date of accident and thus the complainant violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, hence O.P. has repudiated the claim. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i) Whether is there any deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite party ?
ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed from the
Opposite Party ?
iii) To that relief ?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents and on behalf of the Opposite party Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 documents are marked.
7. Both parties not filed written arguments. Heard arguments on both sides and perused material placed on record.
8. Points 1 and 2 :- These two points are connected to each other. Hence, they have been discussed together for the sake of convenience.
Learned counsel for complainant contended that though the complainant’s driving license was expired by 12-9-2016 but the same was renewed on 7-12-2017 and no effective license on the date of accident on 9-11-2016, still the O.P. is liable to pay the bills and settle the claim of insurance was in force as per Ex.B1. Hence complainant is entitled for reliefs.
9. Per contra learned counsel for O.P. contended admittedly the driver of accident vehicle had no driving license on 19-11-2016 and his license was renewed only on 7-2-2017 long after the accident date so the complainant who is insured of accident vehicle violated terms and conditions of Ex.B1 policy and the same is proved by Ex.B1, B2 and Ex.A4 as such the O.P. rightly repudiated the claim and no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. After going through the contentions of both parties and considering the material placed on record we find sufficient force in the contention of learned counsel for O.P. Admittedly the complainant was owner cum driver of accident vehicle at the time of accident on 19-11-2016. He insured vehicle as per Ex.B1 policy from 25-10-2016 to 24-10-2017. A perusal of Ex.B1 policy terms and conditions shows that the driver of the insured vehicle should possess valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. But in this case the complainant who was driving the vehicle did not possess any type of license on 19-11-2016 i.e., on the day of accident. Though the complainant had driving license as per Ex.B2 the same was expired by 12-9-2016. The complainant renewed the license only on 07-2-2017. so, it is proved by opposite party that on the day of accident i.e., on 19-11-2016 the complainant who is the driver of the accident vehicle insured with O.P. did not possess valid and effective driving license and thus insured (complainant) violated the terms and conditions of the policy issued by O.P. As such the O.P. rightly repudiated the claim of complainant. Therefore we have hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is not liable to pay the claim of complainant and complaint is not entitled for the reliefs claimed against the O.P. and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of O.P.
11. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 8th day of November, 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Original copy of repudiation letter Dt. 22-2-2017.
Ex. A2 Original copies of retail cash memos dated 4-12-016 issued by Sivaji
Motors.
Ex. A3 P/c of Registration certificate relating to motor car bearing
No.AP-11-AT 5562.
Ex. A4 P/c of driving license of the complainant.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party : -
Ex. B1 Private car insurance policy bearing No.0509904311P109759084 for
the period from 25-10-2016 to 24-10-2017 issued by the O.P.
Ex. B2 Original driving license extract issued by Addl. Licensing Authority,
Seshaiah.
Ex. B3 P/c of driving license pertaining to complainant P. Venkata Sashaih.
Ex. B4 Original Final Survey Report.
Ex. B5 Office copy of Repudiation letter Dt. 22-2-2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri T. Venkata Ramanaiah, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for opposite party.
P.R.
