Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
None is for the appellants. Respondent is served, but respondent too is absent.
We have perused the award passed by the District Consumer Forum against which the appeal has been preferred by the org. complainants since their complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Forum on merits.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
Complainants are wife and son of deceased Tanaji Bhagwan Patil, who met with an accident on 06/12/2006 when he was driving Hero Honda motorcycle at about 10.30 p.m. at Bambwade-Malkapur Road. Said motorcycle was dashed by truck coming from opposite direction and Tanaji Patil sustained injury. He was admitted to C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur, but on the next day he breathed of his last. FIR about accident was lodged in the Kodoli Police Station. Vehicle which met in the accident was insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company. Hence, complainants lodged insurance claim with the Insurance Company. Insurance Company after investigation found that there was no insurance cover for unknown passengers as per policy schedule and repudiated the insurance claim. Not satisfied with the repudiation letter, consumer complaint was filed on behalf of complainants claiming amount of `13 Lakhs for future income which deceased might have got by the service. They also claimed `10,000/- towards medical expenses. They also claimed `1,70,000/- for the mental agonies suffered by the deceased. They also claimed `15,000/- as funeral expenses, `5,000/- miscellaneous expenses and also claimed `5,000/- for cost of the proceeding.
Opponent filed written version and contested the matter. According to the opponent, complaint filed by the complainants is frivolous, false and vexatious and should be summarily rejected. Opponent pleaded that the complainants had not produced FIR, postmortem report and therefore, Insurance Company is not in a position to comment upon the claim. Company pleaded that the complainants are entitled to file accident claim before the Motor Accident Tribunal at District Kolhapur. But, instead of doing so, complainants who are legal heirs of deceased Tanaji Patil preferred to file consumer complaint. According to the opponent/Insurance Company at the time of accident Tanaji Patil was driving the vehicle, but it was owned by Mr.Bhagwan Dhondi Patil and Tanaji Patil at that time was unknown passenger. The person who had taken insurance for Hero Honda bike had not taken insurance covering unknown passenger of the vehicle and therefore, according to the Insurance Company, they had rightly repudiated the claim. They, therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with costs.
Forum below on considering the affidavits and documents placed on record held that neither complainants nor deceased Tanaji Patil were consumers of the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company. The vehicle involved in the accident was owned by Mr.Bhagwan Dhondi Patil and he had taken insurance cover for the said vehicle. Neither complainants nor deceased Tanaji Patil had taken any insurance cover for the vehicle in question and therefore, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between complainants on one hand and Insurance Company on the other hand. As such complainants have no locus standi to file consumer complaint against the Insurance Company. Therefore, Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Being aggrieved by dismissal order, org. complainants have preferred this appeal.
Upon perusing the impugned judgement, we are finding that the order passed by the Forum below dismissing the complaint is just and proper. There is no relationship between deceased Tanaji Patil or complainants on one hand and Insurance Company on the other hand. The insurance cover was taken by owner of the Hero Honda Bike. Owner had not taken insurance cover to cover unknown passenger and therefore, consumer complaint as filed by the complainants, who are legal heirs of deceased Tanaji Patil was not tenable in law and therefore, Forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint. We are therefore finding that there is no substance in the appeal and hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 14th January 2011.
