Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/77

Smit. Mousumi Chakraborty And Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisonal Manager Oritenal Insurance Company LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S. Banik.

02 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   77  of   2014

Smt. Mousumi Chakraborty,
W/O- Lt. Goutam Chakraborty,

Smt. Srestha Chakraborty,
D/O- Late Goutam Chakraborty,

Sri Pathikrit Chakraborty,
S/O- Late Goutam Chakraborty.        

Residents of Dhaleswar,
Agartala, P.S.- East Agartala,
District- West Tripura.            ...........Complainants.
    
             ___VERSUS___
             
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
42/2 Central Road, Agartala, 
P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura,
Represented by its 
Divisional Manager.            .........Opposite party.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        :  Sri Debalay Bhattacharya,
                       Sri Sagar Banik,
                       Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties        :  Sri Basudev Chakraborty,
                       Advocate.                                       
              
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  02.04.2016
J U D G M E N T
        One Mousumi Chakraborty along with minors has filed this petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. She filed this case against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. alleging about the deficiency of service. It is stated in the petition that her husband Goutam Chakraborty met with accident on 17.01.10 and due to the motor accident he lost is life. Before his death being owner he purchased policy from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The policy contained personal Accident coverage for Rs.2 lacs. Accordingly the petitioner and her 2 minors placed their demand for the aforesaid amount when their claim before the motor accident tribunal failed on the ground that  her husband was not 3rd party in the accident. But the claim of the petitioner was not satisfied by the O.P. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. So, she filed this petition for redress. 

2.        O.P. appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner was not the owner cum driver he had no valid driving license at the time of death. The Accident Insurance Policy had the P.A. Coverage for owner cum driver not for only the owner. So, as per terms her claim repudiated rightly.

3.        On the basis of contention raised following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the petitioner being owner is covered by the Insurance Policy certificate?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation?

4.        Petitioner side produced the FIR, Registration of the vehicle, Insurance Policy Certificate, Driving license of the driver, Kabir Hossain, copy of Tax Token, Award of MACT case, Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, copy of Notice,  all exhibited and marked as exhibit – 1 series.  
        Petitioner also examined one witness that the petitioner himself.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the copy of Commercial Vehicle Package Policy. Also produced statement of one witness, Goutam Banik, Senior Assistant Officer of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. But he did not appear to face cross examination.

6.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now decide the above points.

        Findings and decision:
7.        We have gone through the documents and evidence as produced by both the parties.
        It is admitted and established fact that the husband of the complainant Goutam Chakraborty died by motor accident. The FIR, Post Mortem report and the evidence of the petitioner establishes this fact and O.P. also did not deny it. The main contention is about the P.A. coverage of the deceased. We have perused the policy certificate produced by both the parties. From the policy certificate it is clear that P.A. coverage was given to owner cum driver of the vehicle. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner, Goutam Chakraborty was not the owner cum driver. He was only the owner having no driving license. Vehicle was being driven by Kabir Hossain who had the driving license. Goutam Chakraborty was not covered under P.A. Coverage by the policy 3rd party and owner cum driver was covered for an amount of Rs.2 lacs. Rs. 100/- was paid as premium for the comprehensive policy. It is stated by the administrative officer of the O.P. that the owner must have valid driving license at the time of accident as per terms and conditions. The commercial vehicle package policy rules also support this fact. Petitioner side could not produced any single evidence to support that Goutam Chakraborty had any driving license at the time of accident. The provision deals with the personal Accident coverage and only the registered owner in person is entitled to compulsory covers where he holds  effective driving license. Even P.A. coverage can not be granted where vehicle is owned by the complainant where the owner driver does not hold effective driving license. Admittedly, Goutam Chakraborty had no valid driving license. He was not the driver of the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by Kabir Hossain who had the driving license. Goutam Chakraborty was  the registered owner but he was not covered by the policy certificate. When the terms and conditions of the policy certificate do not supports the coverage then petitioners claim for compensation under P.A. coverage can not sustain. We therefore, hold that petitioner is not entitled to get any amount under P.A. coverage. Both the points are decided accordingly against the petitioners.

8.        In view of above findings over the two points we are of the considered view that the petitioners being the legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle is not entitled to get any compensation as the policy did not cover the death of the owner having no driving license. As a result, the claim of the petitioners failed. Parties are to bear their own cost. The case is disposed of.

                          Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
WEST TRIPURA.