IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.131/09 (Filed on 03.10.2009)Between: Annamma Joseph, Vedamparampil Veedu, Peringara Village, Thiruvalla Taluk. (By Adv. Sunitha. K.K.) ..... Complainant And: 1. The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Changanassery. 2. The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. (By Adv. P.D. Varghese) ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Facts of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is the wife of late V.V. Joseph. He was the registered owner of a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL.27/5790 on 25.5.2009 at 3 p.m. the said V.V. Joseph has on the way from Alappuzha to home. When he reached at Ramankary Titanic Bridge from west to east, a Tata Indica Car from east to west dashed his vehicle. He was thrown to the road and inflicted serious injuries and admitted at Medical College Hospital, Alapuzha and died at 4 p.m. on the same day. 3. Complainant’s husband V.V. Joseph’s bike was insured with opposite parties and the policy No. is 760102/31/08/01/7598. The assured amount is one lakh and personal accident coverage is also included in the policy claimed the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party. But she received a letter stating that she had not produced the driving licence of V.V. Joseph. Therefore the claim has not been considered so far. Hence this complaint for getting the assured amount with interest and cost. 4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They admit the policy of complainant’s husband V.V. Joseph’s motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-27/5790 for a period from 22.10.08 to 21.10.09. They also admitted the personal Accident Cover for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to owner cum driver. It is clearly stipulated in Sec.III(c) of the policy that the owner driver holds an effective driving licence in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 at the time of the accident. Opposite parties requested the complainant to produce the driving licence of the deceased authorising him to drive two-wheeler at the time of the accident but the complainant failed to produce the same. Therefore they repudiated the claim and it was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 24.8.2009. Moreover the person died in the accident is one Joseph Varghese @ Thankachan whereas the insured is V.v. Joseph. The complainant is duty bound to prove that both are one and the same person. Therefore, opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 5. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the reliefssought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Cost? 6. Evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant along with certain documents. She was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. 7. Evidence of opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the 2nd opposite party along with certain documents. Documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 series. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard. 8. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit. Complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the reply notice of 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the copy of F.I.S issued by Ramankary Police Station. Ext.A3 is the copy of post mortem report issued from Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. Ext.A4 is the driving license of late V.V. Joseph. 9. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. Documents produced by him have been marked as Ext.B1 series. Ext.B1 is the policy issued by opposite parties. Ext.B1(a) is the policy conditions. Ext.B1(b) is Clause C(c) in page No.2 of Ext.B1(a). 10. On the basis of the averment and contention of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the issuance of policy and accident. The only dispute is the non-production of the driving licence of complainant’s husband V.V. Joseph. On a perusal of Ext./a4, it is learned that the deceased had not renewed the license since 30.7.07. Therefore he had no valid driving licence at the time of accident i.e. on 25.05.2009. According to opposite parties, Ext.B1(a) stipulates that “the owner driver holds an effective driving licence, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1959 at the time of accident. 11. On going through the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, it is seen that the holder of the licence has an option, in terms of section 15 to renew it even after the expiry. Even after the period of expiry, one need not apply for a licence. He needs to apply only for its removal. However, if a period of five years has elapsed after the expiry of the validity of the driving license, the licensing authority may refuse to remove the driving licence, as provided under Section 15 (proviso) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. But in the instant case, this proviso is not applicable. It is seen that accident occurred within two years after the expiry of the licence. 12. In this case, admitted position is that owner-driver of the vehicle possessed a two-wheeler driving license No.PIT 293/002 granted by R.T.O., Thiruvalla. It was issued on 31.07.2002 and was valid from 31.07.2002 to 30.07.2007 and was not renewed during the period from 31.07.2007 onwards, till the date of accident i.e. 25.05.2009. The said driving license is renewable. If a genuine driving licence is expired it can be renewed and would not mean that he does not know driving and if he drives a vehicle during this period, it is against M.V. Act and Rules. 13. Moreover, opposite parties had either challenged that absence of driving licence of the deceased owner-driver is the cause of accident or the accident was due to the absence of his driving skill. Nothing has been brought on record to show that lack of driving skill on the part of the owner-driver of the vehicle was the fundamental cause of the accident. On a perusal of Ext.A2, it is evident that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of another driver. Ext.A4 shows that the deceased owner-driver had sufficient experience to drive two-wheeler from 31.07.2002 onwards, ie. for a period of five years. Therefore, the denial of the claim solely based on Ext.B1(a) condition is unjustifiable and irrational.` 14. It is also pertinent to note that at the time of issuing the Ext.B1 policy, the deceased owner-drivers driving license had already been expired. In this context, opposite parties are bound to answer why they have issued a policy to a person who is having an invalid licence. Therefore, after issuing Ext.B1 to the deceased, they are estopped from denying the claim merely by stating that the owner-driver has no valid driving licence. 15. The rules under the Motor Vehicle Act are independent rules and violation thereof invites penal action. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is concerned; it is an independent and additional remedy and has to be determined in the light of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is a universal rule of interpretation that wherever more than two interpretations are possible in any contract or terms of the contract or of the statute, the interpretation which goes in favour of and protects the interest of the consumer is the only interpretation, which has to be acted and relied upon. Otherwise the very object of the statute enacted for the benefit and welfare of consumers at large would be defeated and frustrated. The effort of the insurance company should not be to find out a ground to reject the claim. The effort should be that how the consumer can be benefited by interpreting the terms of a contract or provision of a statute in a beneficial manner. 16. In the instant case, the claim of the complainant is in respect of a personal accident cover as per Ext.B1 policy. The owner-driver, the husband of the complainant died in the accident having not causing any fault in his driving as evident in this case. Since the cardinal principle of insurance is for the welfare and benefit of the consumers and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that complainant’s claim is allowable and maintainable before this Forum. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no amount is allowable for compensation and cost. 17. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) as the insured amount to the legal heirs of the deceased including the complainant as per Succession Act applicable to the deceased within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount will follow 10% interest per annum from this date till the realisation of the whole amount. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of July, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Annamma. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Registered letter dated 24.08.2009 sent by the Branch Manager of the first opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Photocopy of the First Information Report of Ramankary Police Station. A3 : Photocopy of the Post-mortem Certificate dated 26.05.2009. A4 : Driving licence of V.V. Joseph. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Insurance policy. B1(a) : Two wheeler package policy clause. B1((b): Relevant portion of Ext.B1(a). (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) Annamma Joseph, Vedamparampil Veedu, Peringara Village, Thiruvalla Taluk. (2) The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Changanassery. (3) The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. (4) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
