ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CH RAMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in F.A. No. 84/2003 is opposite party No. 1 in C.D. No. 534/1999 on the file of District Forum, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of lorry bearing No. AP 31 T 8217 Tata make and the same is insured with the first opposite party. Second opposite party is Transport Contractor and Commission Agent with its office at Bangalore. During November, 1997 the lorry was transporting cabbage load from Chikballapur to Bhubaneswar as hired and contracted by opposite party No. 2. For a transport agency within the local limits of Metropolitan city like Bangalore, the driver would be provided by the agent i.e., second opposite party. On 14.11.1997 at about 8.00 p.m. the driver engaged by the second opposite party, namely, A. Ramakrishna, reported while they were near Boodigare cross two persons got inside the truck and wanted to come up to Devanahalle. Thereafter when the truck was stopped near Honasuru gate for attending to nature s call, the two unknown persons took away the truck. FIR was lodged and thereafter a claim was made to the opposite party, Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed, who stated in his report that the policy conditions were violated since the driver allowed third parties inside the vehicle. In spite of repeated requests, the claim was not allowed. Hence the complaint.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 filed counter contending that the driver had no driving licence and taking unauthorized persons in their vehicle was in violation of the policy conditions. Hence their repudiation is justified and plead that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.