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