Orissa

Cuttak

CC/120/2021

Ananta Charan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Biswal & associates

20 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                   C.C.No.120/2021

1.            Ananta Charan Das,

S/o: Late Radhu Das

 

2.           Annapurna Pattu,

W/O:Ananta Charan Das

Both are of Vill/PO:Hatibari,P.S:Sukinda,

Dist:Jajpur,Pin-755018

At present both are residing

C/o:Jayanta Kumar Pradhan

Plot No.F/374,Sector-VII,

CDA,Cuttack-753014..                                                              ... Complainants.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Managing Director,

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

(Formerly known as Royal Sundaram

Alliance Indurance Company Ltd.)

Corporate Office Vishranathi Melaram Tower

No.2/319,Rajiv Gandhi Salai(OMR),Karapakam,

Chennai,Pin-600097.

 

2.        Proprietor /Chairman,

Royal Sundaram InsuranceLtd.,

                             Regd. Office-21 Patullos Road,Chennai,Pin-600002.

 

3.        Branch Manager-Cum-Claim Manager,

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2^nd Floor Radhika Complex,

Puri-Cuttack Road,Jharpada,

Bhubaneswar,Pin-751006.                                             ... Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    09.08.2021

Date of Order:  20.09.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. R.K.Biswal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.              :          Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

            Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainants have filed this case since because the insurance claim towards their deceased son was repudiated by the O.Ps of this case.  Debabrata Das, the son of the complainants while driving the Maruti Ciaz Car bearing Regd. No.OD-34D-0016 had met with an accident on the road near Krupajal Engineering College inbetween Bhubaneswar to Puri during the midnight of 31.12.19/1.1.20 at about 1.30 A.M.  The complainants had insured under one package policy of the O.Ps. to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and had paid the premium thereto on 21.4.19.  A sum of Rs.315/- was also paid by the complainants towards personal accident covering the insurance amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.  After the sad demise of their son Debabrata Das when the complainants claimed the insurance amount, the same was turned down by the O.Ps and inspite of their several efforts, when they failed to get the same, they had filed this case claiming the insured amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards coverage of the death of their son Debabrata Das together with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.  They have also claimed from the O.Ps a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses as incurred by them.

            The complainants have filed copies of several documents as regards to the policy, FIR as lodged for the death of their son and the vehicle papers in order to prove their case.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the case is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  According to them though the package policy as regards to the private vehicle was obtained by the complainants, it was Annapurna Pattu, wife of Ananta Charan Das who was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-34D-0016 and the said vehicle being insured vide Package Policy no.MOP555901000100 which was effective from 21.4.19 to 20.4.20.  Thus, according to the Package Policy conditions, it was only the registered owner Mrs. Annapurna Pattu (one of the complainants) who was insured but no premium was paid for the occupants of the vehicle under the Indian Motor Tariff,16 and as such there would be no insurance coverage for the deceased Debabrata Das.  According to them no premium was paid by the complainants under the Package Policy IMT-16 covering the personal accident coverage of any other person other than the owner-cum-driver and when the deceased Debabrata Das is not the owner of the vehicle in question, the insurance as claimed for the deceased is liable to be dismissed. 

They have also filed copies of documents in support of their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue no.ii.

            Out of the three issues as framed, issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly the deceased Debabrata Das was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time and place where he met with an accident and had sustained fatal injuries for which he succumbed to those injuries.  There is no dispute that the deceased Debabrata Das had a valid driving license.  There is also no dispute that while the vehicle met with an accident, it had valid insurance coverage.  Ofcourse as per the Package Policy it was the owner/complainant the mother of the deceased who was covered under the Package Policy and none else.  To this effect the O.Ps have relied upon a pertinent decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Sabitri Devi and others published in 2015(2) CPR 895(SC).  Having regards to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as per the conditions of the Package Policy as obtained by the complainants here in this case,  it is noticed that unfortunately, the deceased Debabrata Das is not entitled to get the insurance value of Rs.15,00,000/- as claimed by his unfortunate parents but while scrutinising the terms and conditions of the car Package Policy as filed by the O.Ps at Annexure-A/2, it is noticed that under the heading Sec-II-liability to third party at point no.3, the person driving the private car on the insured’s order or with insured’s permission provided that such driver shall as though he/she was the insured observe fulfil and be subject to the Terms Exceptions and Conditions of this Policy in so far as they apply.  While analysing the said provision and when there was no specific denial from the O.Ps side and when as per the implied consent of the owner/complainant who is none else than the mother of the deceased,  the deceased Debabrata Das was driving the said vehicle in question and when there is no question from the O.Ps as regards to the remuneration to the deceased son from the owner/mother, if any, this Commission comes to a conclusion that the deceased while performing the duty as a “driver” at the nick of time had met with an accident near Krupajal Engineering College for which he died.  Thus, he is undoubtedly entitled to be covered under the insurance and the claimants are to receive a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the deceased driver and when the same is not given to the claimant-complainants for the deceased driver Debabrata Das it can be said here in this case that the O.Ps were deficient in their service.   This issue is answered accordingly.

Issues no.i & iii.

            As per the above discussions, when it is the deceased Debabrata Das who is entitled to a minimum insurance of Rs.2,00,000/- and was not being given by the O.Ps, the complainants by filing this case it is undoubtedly maintainable and the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed but to a limited extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed partially on contest against all the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are therefore directed to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the deceased driver Debabrata Das from the date when such claim was made by the complainants together with interest @ 9% per annum till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment as caused by them.  Both the O.Ps are directed to bear the litigation expenses of the complainants to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.  This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.