Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/196/2006

Mary K.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager ,United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

James Chacko,Jose Y.Chacko

28 May 2008

ORDER


Alappuzha
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
consumer case(CC) No. CC/196/2006

Mary K.S
Aromal
Jeevan Albin
Priya Albin
Smitha Albin
Swapna Albin
Twinkle Albin
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Divisional Manager ,United India Insurance
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT) Complainants are the legal heirs of deceased P.V. Albin. P.V. Albin died in a road traffic accident while he was driving KL-4/T-7342 Activa Scooter. The policy taken for the vehicle is a package policy. Hence driver is entitled to get the personal accident cover of the said vehicle. The claim of the complainants are not allowed by the opposite party. Hence they preferred this complaint. 2. Opposite party filed version stating that the claim is not maintainable and payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Deceased is not the insured owner of the said vehicle. Hence claim is not allowable. Hence the repudiation of the claim is true and correct. 3. Considering the contentions of the complainants and opposite party this forum raised the following issue: “Whether the complainants are entitled for claim amount and compensation from the opposite party establishing the deficiency as averred in the complaint?” 4. Complainants filed 6 documents and filed proof affidavit. Documents marked as Exts. A1 to A6. Opposite party filed one document and marked as Ext. B1. 5. The case of the complainants that deceased P.V. Albin was the rider of KL-4/T-7342 Activa Scooter and he died in a road traffic accident. In the policy issued in this case insured was paid Rs. 50/- for personal accident coverage for owner-driver. But according to the opposite party deceased should be the owner cum driver of the vehicle. In this case Ext. B1 shows that insured is Twinkle Albin. This fact shows that deceased was not the owner of the said vehicle. The opposite party has not produced the terms and conditions of the policy which is very material in this case. In the absence of this document we relied the general regulations of the Tariff Advisory committee a statutory body constituted under Insurance Act. As per the general regulation No. 36 of the Tariff Advisory Committee registered owner/legal heirs is only entitled to get this amount. The General regulation is as follows:- GR.36. Personal Accident (PA) Cover under Motor policy A. Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package Policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an ‘effective’ driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section. Cover is provided to the Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver. N.B. This provision deals with personal Accident cover and only the registered owner in person is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving license. Hence compulsory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or a similar body corporate or where the owner-driver does not hold an effective driving license. In all such cases, where compulsory PA cover cannot be granted, the additional premium for the compulsory PA cover for the owner-driver should not be charged and the compulsory PA cover provision in the policy should also be deleted. Where the owner-driver owns more than one vehicle, compulsory PA cover can be granted for only one vehicle as opted by him/her. This regulation clearly indicates that the claim of the complainants is not allowable. Hence complaint dismissed. No order on cost. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 28th day of May, 2008 Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainants:- PW1 - K.S. Mary Ext. A1 01-02-2006 Copy of Report of Village Officer, Punnapra Ext. A2 28-11-2005 Copy of Post Mortem Certificate Ext. A3 28-11-2005 Copy of FIR & FIS Ext. A4 12-05-2006 Letter from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Addressed to Adv. James Chacko Ext. A5 - Copy of Legal notice issued by the Complainants to the opposite party with A/d and receipt. Ext. A6 - Copy of policy certificate issued by the Opposite party. Evidence of the Opposite party:- Ext. B1 - Duplicate copy of insurance policy // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainants/Opposite party/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:




......................JIMMY KORAH
......................K.Anirudhan
......................Smt;Shajitha Beevi