Heard counsel for the parties on condonation of delay in filing the revision by 128 days.  The ground for condonation is that the counsel for the petitioner to whom the matter was entrusted, was ill and hospitalized for some time after which he was advised to bed rest till Sept., 2009.  However, even thereafter, the petition was filed only in Dec., 2009.  The application does not also disclose as to volume of documents which were required to be translated from Hindi to English.   Be that as it may, we were inclined to condone the delay subject to however, deposit of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.  The said amount has already been deposited by the petitioner in the Registry.  The same be transferred to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.  Application for condonation of delay is allowed in aforesaid terms.

          Heard counsel for the parties on merits.  Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already complied with the award passed by fora below except that the petitioner is disputing the liability to pay Rs.2 lakhs compensation to the insured Dr.V.K. Tirki for Personal Insurance Cover out of Rs.4 lakhs which has been awarded in addition to the loss of the vehicle and other reliefs.  In this connection, he draws our attention to Personal Accident Cover for Owner – Driver, Section III Clause 2 (C) and submits that since Dr.V.K.Tirki, insured did not have any driving license at the time of the accident, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to him.  He has also drawn our attention to IMT 16 Personal Accident to unnamed passenger other than the insured driver and states that in view of the provisions therein, the insured is not covered and Dr.V.K.Tirki cannot to be considered as passenger for that purpose and as such he is not entitled to any compensation. Counsel for the respondent states that the interpretation put by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and if it is accepted, it will be resulted in illogical conclusion that in spite of the fact that the Personal Insurance Cover was taken by Dr.A.K. Tirki who is owner of the vehicle, he would not be entitled to any compensation.  The relevant portion of Section III reads as under:-

“SECTION III – PERSONAL ACCIDENT COVER FOR OWNER – DRIVER”

 “(2)          This cover is subject to

(a)  the owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein ;

(b) the owner-driver is the insured named in this policy.

(c)  the owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of the accident.”

          The relevant portion of IMT 16 upon which reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner is as under :-

“IMT.16. PERSONAL ACCIDENT TO UNNAMED PASSENGERS OTHER THAN INSURED AND THE PAID DRIVER AND CLEANER

In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer undertakes to pay compensation on the scale provided below for bodily injuries hereinafter defined sustained by any passenger other than the insured and/or the paid driver attendant or cleaner and/or a person in the employ of the insured coming within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act and engaged in an upon the service of the insured at the time such injury is sustained whilst mounting into, dismounting from or traveling in the insured motor car and caused by violent, accidental external and visible means which independently of any other cause shall within three calendar months of the occurrence of such injury result in.”

          The entire purpose of the Insurance Personal Cover of the owner of the vehicle would be frustrated if we accept the interpretation put by counsel for the petitioner.  If the owner-driver is himself driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and he does not hold the driving license, he cannot be paid the amount of Personal Cover.  However, if the owner is not driving the vehicle and dies or suffers injuries in accident then to insist that he should have driving license in order to cover the personal benefit accident cover would amount to denial of the same on the ground which is not germane there under.  In our opinion, beneficial interpretation has to be extended in favour of the consumer in respect of sub clause (c) of clause 2 of Section III – Personal Accident Cover for Owner – Driver. Therefore, the provision of Clause 2 of Section III, Personal Accident Cover for Owner – Driver in any manner, covers the case of the petitioner.    In view of this, we do not find that there is any merit in this revision and the revision is, hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost.