UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. C.PRABHAKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it pay Rs. 60,847/- together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of repudiation till the date of realization.

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is that he got his jeep insured with the appellant insurance company covering the period from 31.10.2004 to 30.10.2005 for Rs. 3,75,000/-. While so, on 29.10.2005 his driver who drove the vehicle while proceeding from Galiveedu to Kadapa he lost control of the jeep due to rain fall and the jeep was turned turtle. The vehicle was damaged. On report the police registered a case and the driver was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 177 of M.V. Act. On intimation the insurance company appointed a surveyor who visited the scene of offence and noted the damages of the vehicle. He got it repaired at an automobile workshop at Kadapa by spending Rs. 60,847/-. When he claimed the amount the insurance company repudiated the claim mentioning that the driver was having only LMV driving licence while the vehicle insured was a transport vehicle a violation of policy condition. Alleging that repudiation was unjust he filed the complaint to direct the insurance company to pay Rs. 60,847/- with interest @ 18% p.a., from 25.1.2006 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs.

(3.) The insurance company resisted the case. It denied the averments made by the complainant. However it admitted issuance of policy covering the risk of the vehicle. The allegation that he had spent Rs. 60,847/- for repairs of the jeep is not true. They are all fabricated bills. The surveyor had assessed the damage at Rs. 13,350/-. At any rate, the driver who drove the vehicle had only LMV Non-transport driving license whereas the vehicle is a transport passenger carrying commercial vehicle. He needs LMV transport license to drive his vehicle. Since there is violation of terms of the policy the complainant was not entitled to any compensation and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.