Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/108/2021

Manju Kanwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sandeep Sheoran

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 108 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution: 20.4.2021

                                                          Date of Decision: 17.11.2023

 

1. Manju Kanwar widow 2. Shakti Singh Rathore son 3.Anku Kanwar 4. Anita daughters, 5. Amit Singh Rathore son of Chatar Singh son of Karni Singh, all residents of village Sarsar, District
Churu (Rajasthan).

 

                                                                                    ..….Complainants.

Versus

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Sawarkar Marg, near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400025 through its authorized signatory (insurer of motor cycle chasis No. 28876, Engine No. 57684, vide policy No. 3005/2011534211/00/0000001377 covering the risk for the period from 7.11.2018 to 6.11.2023.

                                                                                                                                                    …....Respondent/OP.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

Before: -     Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Sandeep Sheoran, Adv. for complainant.

                 Sh. Rajender Verma, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER:-

              

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant No. 1 is widow, complainant No. 2 & 5 are sons and complainant Nos. 3 & 4 are daughters of deceased Chatar Singh. It is averred by the complainants that deceased Chatar Singh was registered owner of motorcycle insured with the OP vide policy No. 3005/2011534211/00/0000001377 covering the risk from 7.11.2018 to 6.11.2023. It is averred that when Chatar Singh was driving the said motorcycle, met with an accident and died at the spot and in this regard, an FIR No. 213 dated 17.6.2019 was got lodged with P.S. Dadri Sadar. After his accident, the complainants applied the claim with required documents to the OP but the OP failed to release the insured amount to the complainant. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to pay the insured amount, with compensation and the cost of litigation expenses besides any other cost which this Commission may deem fit and proper.

2.             On notice, the OP appeared and filed the written statement. It is admitted by the OP that the motorcycle of Chatar Singh was insured for IDV of Rs. 54,415/-vide policy No. 3005/158723765/00/000 for OD purpose from 7.11.2018 to 6.11.2019 and for third party from 7.11.2018 to 6.11.2023. It is stated that PA for owner driver was also covered under this policy. It is averred that intimation with regard to death of insured was received in the office of OP and the complainant had submitted the claim form. It is averred that on receiving the documents from complainant, it was found that insured was holding only learner’s licence at the time of accident and he alone was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident, which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant vide their letter dated 13.9.2019 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is averred that as the complainant has not suffered any mental agony, harassment etc. due to any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence, the complainants are not entitled for any claim or compensation from the OP. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP.

3.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-12 and closed the evidence on 4.1.2023.

4.             On the other hand, the OP closed the evidence after tendering into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-7 on 15.2.2023.

5.             We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by both the parties very carefully and minutely.

6.             On perusal of case file, it stands clear that Chatar Singh complainant, who owned and possessed motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ-10M-3754 got insured his motorcycle vide insurance policy No. 3005/158723765/00/000 and met with an accident on 17.6.2019. FIR got lodged in this regard is on file as Ex. C-7. We perused the contents of said FIR and observed that Chatar Singh was riding/driving the motorcycle on the said fateful day on 17.6.2019 and had died due to the suffering of injuries in an accident.

7.             It is the contention of the OP in their written statement that at the time of accident, the insured was holding only a learner’s license and he alone was riding the motorcycle. To prove the same, the OP supported the said contention by filing an affidavit (Ex. RW-1/A) of Sonu Rathi, authorized signatory on behalf of OP company who deposed on oath that Chatar Singh/insured was holding only learner’s license and alone was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident and drawn the attention of this Commission towards Learner’s License issued to Chatar Singh (Ex. R-7). It has been observed that the complainant has failed to controvert the above contention of OP by producing any documentary evidence that the insured was not riding the motorcycle alone at the time of accident. Other documentary record placed on file by the respective parties i.e. copy of FIR etc. also clear this fact that none other than Chatar Singh was riding the offending motorcycle who caused injuries leading to complication to Chatar Singh which were sufficient to cause death and opined in postmortem report (Ex. C-12) by the competent Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Charkhi Dadri. Therefore, we are of the firm view that at the time of death, only Chatar Singh was riding/driving the said motorcycle and was died in the said accident.

8.             We have observed that insurance policy was issued by the OP to said Chatar Singh for insuring his Honda Motorcycle for total value of Rs. 54,415/-and the OP also charged premium amount for PA cover for owner-Driver which comes under policy section III for Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver. We have further observed that the OP have repudiated the death claim of complainant vide their letter dated 13.9.2019 (Ex. R-6) informing the complainant for rejection of claim in the context of policy condition of Section III as well as per Motor Act (Chapter II). The OP have clearly mentioned in their repudiation letter (Ex. R-6) that as per Clause 3 C of policy condition III, the cover is subject to the condition that the Owner Driver holds an effective license in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, at the time of accident. Further that as per Motor Act, “a learner licensing person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving license to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle”. It has been further mentioned by the OP in their repudiation letter (Ex. R-6) that as the insured was holding learner’s license at the time of accident and was alone on the bike at the time of accident, hence, the same falls outside the purview of policy terms and conditions. The counsel for OP further referred Learner’s License of complainant Chatar Singh as (Ex. R-7).

9.                We are fully convinced that Chatar Singh was having a Learner’s License (Ex. R-7) at the time of accident which comes under the Driver’s Clauses of the insurance policy (Ex. R-1) which clearly says that “Any person including the insured: provided that a person driving holds an effective Driving Licence at the time of the accident and not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.”

10.              Hence, we have also gone through Rule 3 of the said Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which provides that:-

                       3. General.—The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as— (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving License to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and the rear or the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background…

11.           Judgment passed by our Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in FAO-3350-2016 (O&M), pronounced on 9.2.2023 in case titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kirpal Kaur and others is almost on the same footing wherein “Driver of offending vehicle, holding learning licence was not accompanied by any instructor at the time of accident-Motor Vehicle Act- Section 166 -Owner cum driver of offending motorcycle was holding learner’s license at the time of accident -Section2 (19) M.V. Act defines learner’s License-Insurance Policy provides that person holding an effective learner’s license may drive the vehicle provided such a person satisfies requirement of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989-No evidence produced to show that at the time of accident, driver was accompanied by an instructor having a valid license-Thus there was breech of terms and condition of the policy.”

12.           Therefore, in view of above referred policy conditions, Rule 3 of the said Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, we are of the considered view that as deceased insured Chatar Singh was holding a Learner’s Driving License, which was no doubt a valid license but Insurance Policy terms and condition provides that person holding an effective learner’s license may drive the vehicle provided such a person satisfies requirement of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 but there is no evidence produced by the complainant  to show that at the time of accident, driver was accompanied by an instructor having a valid license as per requirement of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In this way, there is breech of terms and condition of policy conditions. 

13.           In view of aforesaid discussions, findings and observations, we find no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP in repudiating the claim of complainant and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the OP. Thus we hereby dismiss the present complaint of complainants with no orders as costs.

14.           Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

15.           File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: - 17.11.2023