Date of filing : 10-07-2009 Date of order : 25-05-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 179/2009 Dated this, the 25th day of May 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Vincent D’Souza.A, S/o.Anthony D’Souza, Kallugadde House, Bela.Po, } Complainant Kumbla, Kasaragod Taluk. (Adv.A.B.Nair, Kasaragod.) Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd, } Opposite party GE-Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune.411 006 Maharashtra State. (Adv.S.Mammoo Talikparamba) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT In nutshell the case of the complainant is as follows:- Complainant is the owner cum driver of the goods Autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-14 E 5879. The vehicle is insured with opposite party. It met with an accident on 30-08-2008 and the complainant sustained grievous injuries including fracture. According to the complainant as per the policy issued opposite party is bound to compensate him as per the Personal Accident Claim contained in the policy. But instead of his repeated requests they did not indemnify his loss. Hence the complaint. 2. According to opposite party the complaint is not maintainable. The alleged injury caused to the complainant will not come under the purview of the Personal Accident Coverage contained in the policy. Therefore the claim of the complainant is not entertained. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A6 marked. On behalf of opposite party, Ambily George Senior Legal Executive of opposite party filed affidavit. Ext. B1 marked. Both sides heard documents perused. 4. As per Ext.A5 Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Prasad Menon of Kasaragod Institute of Medical Science the complainant has 10% permanent total disability due to the accident. But the learned counsel for opposite party Sri.Mammu invited our attention Section IV of Ext.B1 policy. As per that some injuries are scheduled that make the opposite party liable to pay compensation as per the Personal Accident cover for owner-driver. As rightly pointed out by him the disability caused to the complainant is not seen in the said schedule of injuries. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. 5. Even otherwise the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Bolem Rama Devi & Others reported in 2009 CTJ 878 (CP) (NCDRC). In this decision the Hon’ble National Commission while considering the claim of the owner cum driver of the vehicle as per PA coverage policy held that no court or any other tribunal including the Consumer Fora except the Motor Accident Claim Tribunals have jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The Hon’ble National Commission relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, ThiruvalluvarTransport Corporation V. Consumer Protection Council reported in 1995 CTJ 193 (SC)(CP) for rendering the above order. Therefore in view of the above decision also the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Therefore the complaint fails and hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Copy of FIR A2.Photocopy of case diary Page No.23 A3.Photocopy of accident Register-Cum wound Certificate issued by Kasaragod Institute of Medical Sciences. A4.Discharge Notes (Kasaragod Institute of Medical Sciences) A5. 2-10-08 Certificate issued by Dr.Prasad Menon A6.Photocopy of Certificate cum policy schedule. B1.Certified True copy of Certificate cum policy schedule. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
