Date of Filing : 01.07.2011
Date of Order : 03.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 3rd APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 158 / 2011
Smt. Nagamani,
W/o. Late K.B. Shiva Kumar,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o. No. 43, Katachowkandahalli Village,
Jangamakote Hobli, Siddlaghatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
(By Sri. V. Sridhar, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No. 4/3-1 & 2/3, 11th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore – 560 061.
Rep. by its Manager.
(By Sri. B. Kumar, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay to the Complainant Rs.2,50,000/- are necessary:
Husband of the Complainant K.B. Shivakumar had insured his vehicle FORD ICON Car bearing Reg. No. KA-02/Z-2736 with the OP and the Policy was valid between 16.04.2010 & 15.04.2011 and the personal accident benefit limited to Rs.2,00,000/- was there for which he had had paid extra premium. On 16.10.2010 owing to accident, while driving the vehicle he met with an accident and he died, On 17.10.2010 case was registered in Crime No. 157/2010. Complainant laid claim with the OP with all the necessary documents. But, OP has not honoured the claim. Hence the Complaint.
2. In brief the version of OP are:
The insurance of the vehicle by the deceased, husband of the Complainant met with an accident, his death, personal accident claim are all admitted. As the Driving Licence of the Driver was not furnished, claim is not honoured. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, Complainant had filed her affidavit, OP has filed Memo stating that their version be read as their evidence and also filed written arguments. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that deceased Shivakumar was the husband of the Complainant and he was the owner of the vehicle which he had insured with the OP and he paid extra premium covering personal accident benefit upto Rs.2.00 Lakhs.
7. It is also an admitted fact that deceased while driving the vehicle on 16.10.2010 met with an accident and he died on 17.10.2010. Regarding this, Complainant has lodged a claim and the OP has not honoured the claim on the ground that the deceased was not having Driving Licence. It is also an undisputed fact that regarding personal accident claim, if there is total disability or death of the deceased, then full assured amount has to be paid. Here, in this case, Rs.2,00,000/- is the assured amount.
8. In this case, it is the OP who is alleging that deceased had no valid Driving Licence. It is not the case of the Complainant that deceased had no Driving Licence. But, it is the case of the OP. The person who has taken that stand has to establish it. Complainant has clearly stated that she is an illiterate lady, at the time of accident all the documents were also burnt and lost and she is unable to produce the DL of deceased.
9. Further, it is seen that case has been registered by the jurisdictional police against the deceased in Crime No. 157/2010 on 17.10.2010 for the offence u/s. 279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC. Police have not charge sheeted the deceased for having driven the vehicle without any DL. If the deceased had no DL, naturally, police would have charge sheeted the deceased in that regard. But, that has not been done. That means deceased had valid DL. OP has not conducted any investigation to say that deceased had no valid DL to drive the vehicle. It is not the case of the OP that while insuring the vehicle they have learnt that deceased had no DL and he was unable to drive the vehicle or he has engaged the driver to drive the Car. Under these circumstances, the contention of the OP that the deceased had no DL and hence they have not honoured the claim is untenable one.
10. Counsel for the Complainant cited decision reported in 1999 ACJ 171 and 2003 ACJ 221. There is ample force in the said decisions. But, it is given under MVC and not under the C.P. Act. However, analogy of the principle said therein to some extent could be applied to this case also. Citing the judgement of the higher Courts in extenso is opposed to mandate of Regulation 18(5) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. Hence, it is not corroborated or distinguished or discussed in full. Hence, under these circumstances, OP is bound to pay the amount to the Complainant the sum assured under the Policy. Hence, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with interest @ 12% P.A. from 17.10.2010 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. OP is directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
