1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. The above revision petition has been filed against the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udaipur dated 23.12.2015 passed in CC/153/2014 and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan dated 12.07.2022 passed in FA/4/2016. 3. The respondent filed CC/153/2014 claiming insurance claim of Rs.476000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum. The respondent alleged that Late Mool Singh was owner of the car numbered as RJ-27-CA-4044. The owner obtained car package policy from the petitioner which was valid for the period from 15.02.2013 to 14.02.2014. The car met with an accident on 23.04.2013 within the limit of Police Station Mangalwad. In that accident, Mool Singh died on the spot and other inmates of the car were injured. Under the insurances, liability of personal accident was of Rs.200000/- for death and for the damage of the vehicle was of Rs.2.05 lacs (IDV). After the accident, the complainant submitted a claim but the claim was repudiated by the opposite party on 11.12.2013. Therefore, this complaint was filed. 4. The petitioner filed its written reply and contested the complaint in which the issue of policy has not been disputed. The petitioner took the plea that at the time of accident, Mool Singh did not have the driving license. As such, the terms of the policy had been violated. Therefore, no claim was payable under the policy and the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the petitioner. 5. The District Forum, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, found that at the time of accident, Mool Singh was not driving the car. Rather Bhairu Singh was driving the car. Mool Singh was merely sitting in the car. However, the District Forum found that sitting in the car as a co-owner is not liable to be believed since Mool Singh had no valid driving license at the time of accident. At the time of accident, 8 persons were sitting in the car therefore, the claim was payable on non-standard basis and 75% of IDV has been directed to be paid. 6. The complainant challenged the aforesaid order in FA/4/2016. The appeal was heard by the State Commission who, by the impugned order, found that it has not been proved that at the time of accident, there were more than six persons who were sitting in the car. Since the personal accident of the owner is also covered in the policy, therefore, the claim for personal accident was liable to be allowed. On this finding, the appeal has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.205000/- towards the accident of the vehicle and Rs.2 lacs towards the personal insurance claim of the owner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Hence, this revision has been filed. So far as the finding of the State Commission that the opposite party has not been able to prove that there were eight persons who were sitting in the car at the time of the accident is concerned, the petitioner has not pointed out any evidence to show that it suffers from any illegality. The State Commission however, found that Mool Singh was sitting in the car while Bhairu Singh, who was holding the valid driving licence, was driving the car against whom the police had also filed the chargesheet. Therefore, Mool Singh, the complainant died in this accident. The complainant is entitled for personal accident compensation for death of Mool Singh. Both the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The revision has no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. |
