KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.659/09
JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.11
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
1. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Divisional Office, Thiruvalla
Reptd. by its Divisional Manager
Divisional Office- 1,
Thakara parampu, -- APPELLANTS
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Regional Office, Metro palace
Opp.North Railway station,
Cochin-16, reptd. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office-1,
Thakara parampu,
Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv.Varkala B.Ravikumar)
Vs.
G.Thomas
184 Labour Quarters
Industrial Estate -- RESPONDENT
St.Thomas Mount, Guindy,
Chennai.
(R.Balakrishnan Nair)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER
The order dated 25/9/09 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC.143/06 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.80,276/- with 6% interest from the date of complaint till payment with compensation of Rs.3,500/- and cost of Rs.1000/-.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that he is the registered owner of the Hyundai Santro Car bearing Reg.No.TN-09/AD-1109, which was insured with the opposite parties and that the owner-driver had a personal accident cover for Rs.2 lakhs and that on 24.12.05 the vehicle met with an accident and the complainant had sustained serious injuries. The opposite parties allowed only the claim towards damage sustained to the vehicle amounting to Rs.1,25,000/-. The personal accident claim was rejected, though the complainant had been admitted in the hospital for the period from 24.12.05 to 2.1.06 and had sustained 30% permanent disability for eye vision. It is his case that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service.
3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant had filed 2 claims before them for getting compensation for damage to the vehicle and for getting medical re-imbursement for the treatment of injuries sustained by the complainant. It was also submitted that a surveyor was deputed who had assessed the claim and the claim was settled by paying an amount of Rs.91,000/-. It is the further case of the opposite parties that the claim put forward by the complainant under personal accident coverage could not be given due to the fact that at the time of accident the owner-driver had no valid driving license. It was also submitted that the vehicle was driven by another person and the complainant was traveling only in the vehicle. Justifying the repudiation the opposite parties argued for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 on his side.
5. The first opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below is legally unsustainable and hence is liable to be set aside. It is his very case that the complainant had violated the policy condition regarding the license for the owner-driver and at the material time of accident the complainant had no valid license. He has also relied on Ext.B2 (a) where it is stated that for getting the insurance coverage the owner-driver must hold an effective driving license in accordance with provision of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Rules, 1989, at the time of accident. In the instant case, the complainant had no valid license and hence the claim could not be given. Thus, justifying the action of the opposite parties, the learned counsel contended for allowing the appeal thereby dismissing the complaint.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below and argued before us that the order is only to be upheld and the appeal be dismissed. It is his very case that it was fully knowing that the owner-driver had no valid license that the opposite parties issued the personal accident policy by accepting Rs.100/- which would indicate that the owner-driver need not possess a driving license for taking the personal accident policy. He has also relied on DW1 who has deposed that the policy was given to the complainant after fully knowing that the complainant had no license at the time of taking the policy. He argued for the position that if the owner-driver must hold a valid license for taking PA claim the opposite parties ought to have inquired about the driving license of the complainant before issuing the policy. Canvassing for the position that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the learned counsel argued for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, the respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of all the parties that the complainant had a personal accident policy at the time of accident. It is the case of the opposite parties that the insured had no valid driving license at the time of accident. The complainant would argue that it was fully knowing that he had no valid license that the opposite parties issued the policy by accepting the premium. On going through the deposition of DW1 we find that DW1 has stated as follows:-
“PA benefit paid driver da& $Dc& paid driver da workmen’s compensation *UeWk8U<W\EtUBT7a $CW=fUBwWCX= *J*apa [/BbWk8a& PA policy "3WdWkHABfa insured < driving license \E7[AkUDc& =UkV3a [[DHNHa "3WfTDW^ A8U&”
10. We find that the opposite parties had no case that it was after verifying the driving license of the complainant that policy was issued and also that they had informed the complainant about the pre-condition before issuing the policy. After having accepted the premium and after having issued the policy, we find that the opposite parties cannot go back by arguing that the driving must hold a valid and effective license at the time of the accident. We are not inclined to allow the claim of the opposite parties that they are justified in repudiating the claim as the complainant had no valid license. We find that the forum below had appreciated all the facts and evidence in this regard and passed the impugned order. We find no reasons to interfere with the said order.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 25.9.09 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC.143/06 is confirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal there is no order as to costs.
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER