NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MEDAPATI CHELLA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.NO.379/2005 on the file of District Forum, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of lorry bearing registration no.AP-16 U-5799 and the said vehicle was insured under policy no.620502/31/02/02995 for Rs.3 lakhs covering a period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 and the said lorry met with an accident on 21.11.2003 at Konijerla Police Station limits, Khammam when a scooterist came recklessly and the lorry hit a road side tree as it was out of control and the said lorry sustained heavy damages and the spare driver of the lorry by name M.Dora Babu died on the spot in the lorry cabin. The driver of the vehicle by name M.Krishna Reddi was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he was having a driving license. The complainant informed about the accident and immediately the opposite party conducted spot inspection and advised the complainant to send the vehicle for repairs and the complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,90,000/- for repair of the vehicle. The complainant filed a claim petition dt. 8.12.2003 and completed all formalities with the opposite party , but the claim was not settled and surprisingly the opposite party addressed a registered letter dt.25.3.2004 repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of accident one M.Dorababu who is the cleaner is driving the lorry who has no valid driving licence Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at 18% from the date of claim application i.e. 8.12.2003 till realization and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship, Rs.10,000/- towards the monitory loss sustained by the petitioner and to award Rs.2000/-towards costs.

(3.) The opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and stating that as per the terms and conditions of the permit issued in respect of the insured vehicle and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle must be driven by a person having valid and effective driving license and in the event of the insured allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person who does not have valid and effective driving license the liability, if any, of the opposite party under the insurance policy comes to an end and the insured cannot seek indemnity from the opposite party. The opposite party states that the actual driver of the insured vehicle was sleeping in the insured vehicle and allowed the insured vehicle to be driven by cleaner Dora Babu which resulted in an accident. The opposite party submits that since it is established beyond doubt that the insured vehicle at the material time was driven by Dorababu who was only a cleaner who does not have valid and effective driving license, they have repudiated the claim of the complainant. The opposite party further submits that the parents of the deceased Dorababu filed WC.No.5/2004 before the authority under Workmen Compensation Act (Asst.Commissioner of Labour) Rajahmundry alleging that the deceased Dorababu died during the course of his employment under the complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the opposite party as well as the complainant are liable to pay compensation to the parents of the deceased Dorababu. Though the complainant received notice in W.C.No.5/2004 he remained exparte and the opposite party is contesting the said case and it is pending. The opposite party submitted that the surveyor and loss assessor who have obtained competent statutory license appointed by it inspected the insured vehicle and correctly assessed the loss. The opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seeks for dismissal of the complaint with costs.