Haryana

StateCommission

A/4/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANITA - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     04 of 2016

Date of Institution:   04.01.2016

Date of Decision :    12.05.2016

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur-302022 (Rajasthan) through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, S.C.O. No.178, Sector-38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

1.      Anita wife of late Anil Kumar

2.      Jawahar s/o Sh. Sirya

3.      Chandra wife of Jawahar s/o Sh. Siriya

All Residents of Village Kanwarka, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri V.K. Arya, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondents. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Notices of appeal have been served upon the respondents but despite service none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

2.      This appeal has been preferred by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, against the order dated November 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.28 of 2014.

3.      Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR-50B-5504 owned by Vinod Kumar s/o Jawahar Singh, was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period May 25^th, 2011 to May 24^th, 2012 for Rs.29,504/-, vide Insurance Policy Annexure-E. On May 28^th, 2011 the motor cycle, while being driven by Anil Kumar-brother of Vinod Kumar (registered owner) met with an accident, as a result of which Anil Kumar and pillion rider Deep Chand died on the spot. F.I.R. No.192 dated May 28^th, 2011 (Exhibit P-1), under Section 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Sadar Palwal. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainants Anita being widow, Jawahar being father and Chandra being mother, filed claim with the Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.1.00 lac on account of personal accident cover but the same was repudiated on the ground that the deceased Anil Kumar was not covered under the policy. Aggrieved thereof, the complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the Insurance Company had undertaken to indemnify the insured-driver for personal accident subject to provision of GR-36A of India Motor Tariff. The deceased Anil Kumar was not the registered owner of the motor cycle; therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainants. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      The District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“As such as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complainants are entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- as per owner-driver clause. Hence the complaint is allowed with the directions to opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which opposite party would be further burdened with Rs.5,000/- alongwith the above awarded amount.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the order of the District Forum by placing reliance upon GR-36A of India Motor Tariff, reproduced as under:-

“GR.36:      Personal Accident (PA) Cover under Motor Policy (not applicable to vehicles covered under Section E, F and G of Tariff for Commercial Vehicles)

A.      Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver

Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an “effective” driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section.

Cover is provided to the Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co–driver.

 

NB.             This provision deals with Personal Accident cover and only the registered owner in person is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/ she holds an effective driving license.  Hence compulsory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or a similar body corporate or where the owner-driver does not hold an effective driving license.  In all such cases, where compulsory PA cover cannot be granted, the additional premium for the compulsory P.A. cover for the owner - driver should not be charged and the compulsory P. A. cover provision in the policy should also be deleted. Where the owner-driver owns more than one vehicle, compulsory PA cover can be granted for only one vehicle as opted by him/her.

The scope of the cover, Capital Sum Insured (CSI) and the annual premium payable under this section are as under:-

TYPE OF VEHICLES	CAPITAL SUM INSURED (Rs.)	PREMIUM (Rs.)	COVER
Motorised Two Wheelers	1 lakh	50/-	i) 100% of CSI for Death, Loss of Two Limbs or sight of both eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.  ii) 50% of CSI for Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye. iii)100% for Permanent Total Disablement from injuries other than named above.
Private Cars	2 lakhs	100/-	i) 100% of CSI for Death, Loss of Two Limbs or sight of both eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.  ii)50% of CSI for Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye. iii)100% for Permanent Total Disablement from injuries other than named above
Commercial vehicles	2 lakhs	100/-	i) 100% of CSI for Death, Loss of Two Limbs or sight of both eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.  ii) 50% of CSI for Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye. iii)100% for Permanent Total Disablement from injuries other than those named above.

 

7.      A bare reading of GR-36A reflects that the Personal Accident was provided only to the Owner-Driver. As per Insurance Policy (Annexure-E), the benefit of Personal Accident under the heading “Limit of Liability” is as under:-

“P.A. Cover under Section III for Owner-Driver (CSI): Rs.100000.”

8.      Indisputably, deceased Anil Kumar was not the owner of the motor cycle and therefore the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay Personal Accident benefit to the complainant. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

9.      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 12.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL