KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL.149/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 15.11.2010
PRESENT
JSUTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., : APPELLANT
Branch Office. T.G.Towers, 2nd Floor,
Near Bus stand, Nammara, Palakkad,
Represented by the Divisional Manager
Sri.Mohan Sankar, Divisional Office I
LMS Compound, Palayam,Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. R.Sreeram)
Vs.
1. Biji, W/o Late Biju.A, :RESPONDENTS
Karikkonayil, Kaithachir,
Kairady, Chittur, Palakkad.
2. Basil, S/o Late Biju.A,
-do-do-
3. Avarachan Isahak,
F/o Late Biju.A.
-do-do-
4. Valsa Avarachan, W/o Avarachan Isahak
And M/o late Biju.A.,
do-do-
(By Adv.Dhananjayan)
JUDGMENT
JSUTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Appellant is the opposite party/Insurance Company in CC.17/2009 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- the assured amount and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.
2. The case of the complainants is that the complainants are the legal heirs of the registered owner of the motor cycle involved and that as per the personal accident insurance policy from the opposite parties the complainants are entitled for the assured amount as the registered owner died in the motor accident that took place on 3.6.07 and that he was a pillion rider in the vehicle. It is also mentioned that the driver was having the driving license. The claim was repudiated on the ground that registered owner was not having driving license to drive the motor vehicle.
3.The opposite parties/appellants have contended that the coverage is limited to owner cum driver. It is further mentioned in the policy condition that the owner cum driver should be the registered owner of the vehicle and that the owner cum driver should be the insured and that the owner - driver should hold an effective driving license. The claim was repudiated as the insured was not having a driving license.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavits filed by the respective sides, the evidence of DW1; Exts.A1 to A7 and Exts.B1 to B5.
5. The Forum has allowed the complaint holding that the policy condition insisting that the owner cum driver should possess the effective driving license applied only in cases where owner and driver are the same person and that as in instant case the situation is not like that the legal heirs of the registered owner is entitled for the claim. We find that the interpretation of the relevant clauses in the policy by the Forum appears absolutely incorrect.
6. The contention for the counsel for the respondent/ complainant is that policy only mentions as owner – driver and not owner cum driver and hence there is vagueness in the above words used. According to him the words should read as owner or driver. He has also cited decisions that would hold that when there is vagueness the interpretation should be in favour of the consumer. 7. We find that it is mentioned in a number of places in the policy that the personal accident cover is confined to owner – driver. It is also provided that the coverage would also apply in case the owner-driver was traveling, or while mounting/dismounting from the vehicle as co-driver. It is also provided that owner driver should be registered owner; he should be the insured; he should hold an effective driving license. Further the words owner-driver is used in singular in the above clause. Hence we find that the contention of the counsel for the respondent cannot be sustained. In the circumstances we find that the appellants will not be liable as per the terms of the policy for the policy claim. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the Forum is set aside.
Office will forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
JSUTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ps
