26.09.2024:

ORDER

Delivered by Mr.K.B.Sangannanavar. Prl.DJ (R) Judicial Member.

01.   This is an Appeal filed by opposite party in C.C. No.06/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hassan, aggrieved by the order dated: 30.03.2021.

02.   The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Commission.

03.   The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, Impugned order, appeal papers and heard Learned Counsels.

04.    Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be:

“Whether the impugned order dated: 30.03.2021 passed in C.C. No.06/2020 does call for any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memo?”

05.    The brief facts of the case of the complainant, he is owner cum driver, sought for compensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards PA claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It was his case that, on 13.06.2019 at about 12.30 mid night, when he was driving the lorry bearing No. KA-13 - B-9331 met with an accident due to head on collusion with Lorry bearing No. AP-2-V-6971.  He has alleged the said incident was the result of rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No. AP-2-V-6971.  In the said accident, his both legs were fractured.  His vehicle was insured with the opposite party under PA for owner driver for the period from 18.04.2019 to 17.04.2020. 

06.    It is not in dispute, he was the driver of the insured Lorry, met with an accident on 13.06.2019 when the policy was in force or within the period of insurance.  It is also not in dispute, policy issued for PA for owner driver liability fixed for Rs.15,00,000/- for which he had paid Rs.750/- premium amount.  It is not in dispute that, under section IV – Personal Accident cover for owner-driver, name of injury and scale of compensation is prescribed in case of death 100%, in case of loss of 02 limbs or sight of 02 eyes or one limb and sight of one eye is 100%, in case of loss of 01 limb or sight of one eye is 50% and for permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above is 100% and the District Commission held complainant is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- as nominal compensation as against Rs.15,00,000/- for owner driver. 

07.    On the basis of evidence of CW-2 Dr. Deepak S had assessed disability at 40.02% for his right lower limb, which in our view is not fits in to section IV Personal Accident Cover for owner driver towards injury and scale of compensation to be award agreed under the policy between parties to the contract of insurance. In this regard Learned counsel for Appellant/OP submits, there is no liability under the policy to pay any compensation to complainant could be acceptable and to find support has placed decision of this Commission dated: 06.10.2021 passed in Appeal No.785/2014 in the case between The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri. H.S. Mullappa, wherein held “any amount of medical expenses for the injuries sustained in the accident did not come to the assistance to claim compensation under the PA Cover benefits”.  Since owner cum driver did not find fits in the notified scales to claim compensation and held awarding any amount of compensation contrary to the scale either as nominal or global as the case may be is impermissible under law, as such awarding nominal compensation with sympathy has to be held unsustainable. The Commission in the decision cited supra, while so holding relied on decision of the Hon’ble NCDRC in RP No.3061/2008 in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Havaben & Another, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi reported in 2014 ACJ 1574 in the case between Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kavita Singhal & Others and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3252 and the decision of Hon’ble NCDRC reported in II (2010) CPJ 30 (NC) in the case of LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Khazan Singh. 

08.    Thus, from any angle the impugned order dated: 30.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hassan, in CC No.06/2020 does call for an interference of the commission for the grounds set out in the appeal.  Hence we proceed to allow the Appeal.  Consequently set aside the impugned order dated: 30.03.2021 passed in CC No.06/2020 by DCDRF, Hassan, and as a result dismissed the complaint No.06/2020 with no order as to costs.

09.    The amount in deposit is directed to be refund to the Appellant with proper identification by their advocate.

10.    Provide copy of the order to parties and send copy to the concerned DCDRF.

         Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

KNMP*