State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager United India ... vs Dr. P.M. Balaji Old No3, New ... on 19 June, 2012
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice R. REGUPATHI PRESIDENT Thiru A.K. ANNAMALAI MEMBER
(JUDICIAL) Thiru S. SAMBANDAM MEMBER II F.A.NO.948/2011 (Against order in C.C.NO.178/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JUNE 2012
1. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No.21, Raja Annamalai Road Purasawalkam, Chennai- 600 084
2. The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, First Floor M/s.M.B.Gopalan No.21, Raja Annamalai Road Counsel for Purasawalkam, Chennai- 600 084 Appellants / Opposite parties Vs. Dr. P.M. Balaji Old No3, New No.13, M/s.S.Senthilnathan Friends Avenue, Arumbakkam Counsel for Chennai-
600 106 Respondents/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.4.5.2011 in CC. No.178/2007.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:
JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. The opposite parties are the appellant.
2. Since the District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties, for the repudiation of the claim on the basis of the invalid driving license by invoking provision under Sec.14 of the Motor Vehicle Act, by construing that as per the provisions, by taking into consideration of the age of the license holder, it could be valid upto 50 years of age and accordingly by stating that the license produced by the complainant under Ex.A3, would be valid upto 2012, by taking the date of birth as 19.8.1967 as per Ex.C1, eventhough Ex.C1 revealed the date of birth as 19.8.1962, and the claim is made during the year 2006, when the license was already expired in the year 2003 itself.
3. As per Ex.B5, the date of birth alleged as 19.8.1962, and validity upto 18.8.2003, which correlate with Ex.C1 with regard to Date of Birth alone, and Ex.C1 is an extract for the particular date i.e. 31.12.1990, which contains the details of the license issued to various persons on that date, with relevant entries regarding Date of birth, name etc. But in the license relied on by the opposite parties under Ex.B4, the date of birth is mentioned as 19.8.1967, and validity of the license is mentioned from 31.12.90 to 18.8.2007. What made the opposite party to doubt about the validity of the license, was not established and when the RTOs document Ex.C1 and A4 are not proved by oral evidence by the concerned authorities, those documents are filed after filing the complaint. As per the original license, relied on by the complainant under Ex.A3 and by the opposite party under Ex.B4, we take the date of birth of the driver as 19.8.1967, and the validity date of the license upto 18.8.2007, which is well within the force of policy period, at the time of accident. Even in the surveyor report Ex.B3, the validity of Driving License was mentioned as 18.8.2007, thus we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the claim. Eventhough the complainant claimed a sum of RS.29473/-, on the basis of estimation made by the repairer, as per the surveyor report under Ex.B3, the value assessed is only for Rs.23,802/-. Since there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim, based on the RTOs records against the original driving license, they are not liable to pay any compensation, and thereby we are inclined to modify the order of the District Forum, negativing the compensation, ordering to pay the amount estimated as per the surveyor report at RS.23,802/-, with interest, instead of Rs.29473/- as claim by the complainant.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum in CC.No.178/2007 dt.4.5.2011, directing the opposite parties to pay the estimated value of Rs.23,802/- as per the surveyor report in Ex.B3, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint viz. 22.6.2007 till realization, with cost of Rs.3000/-.
The order of granting compensation is hereby set aside. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K. ANNAMALAI R. REGUPATHI MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/FB/ Open court