Date of filing: 24.09.2013.
Date of disposal: 04.06.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Wednesday, the 4th day of June, 2014
C.C.No.160 of 2013
Between:
Consumer Guidance Society Representing: P. Lakshmi Manorama, W/o late Parvathaneni V. Krishna Rao, Aged about 52 years, R/o.54-14/8-67, Auto Colony, Ring Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
….. Complainant
And
1. Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., 2nd Floor, 27-12-76, Garlapati Complex,
Governorpet, Ali Baig Street, P.B. No.385, Vijayawada – 2.
2. Deputy Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., Visaka Regional Office, 47-13-1,
Srinivasa Bhavan, Opp: Indian Oil Corporation, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhaptanam –
530016.
3. Managing Director, DFL Finance Limited, 40-13-4, Chandramoulipuram, Vijayawada
– 520010. (Pro Forma Party).
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 20.5.2014, in the presence of Consumer Guidance Society for complainant; Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2, 3rd opposite party remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao,)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under policy, to pay interest on the said amount and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows;
The 3rd opposite party had taken a motor policy from the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the vehicle Maruti Swift car. The policy was being extended from time to time. The relevant policy of this case was taken for the year from 9.10.2012 to 8.10.2013. P.V. Krishna Rao the husband of the complainant was one of the directors of the 3rd opposite party. The policy covers personal accident to owner cum driver of the vehicle. The complainant’s husband used to drive the car incidental to the employment. On 8.2.2013 while P.V. Krishna Rao was driving the vehicle it met with an accident at 5 AM and Krishna Rao died on the spot. As the complainant is one of the beneficiaries she made a claim request on 12.3.2013. The 1st opposite party raised the queries and clarifications and after clarification from the 3rd opposite party, the 1st opposite party had repudiated the claim on the ground that Krishna Rao was not the owner of the vehicle, that he was not covered by the policy and that personal accident coverage cannot be given to the vehicle owned by company. Thereafter the complainant got issued a notice and filed the present complaint.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version admitting the issue of policy and denying the liability and further stating as follows:
The car bearing No.AP. 16 BK 2299 was owned by the 3rd opposite party company. The company is distinct from its directors and managers etc. The opposite parties 1 and 2 issued a policy on 9.10.2012 for that vehicle. When the vehicle met with an accident and suffered damage the company had cleared the claim as to vehicle damage. G.R. 36 of IMT rules prohibited personal accident cover for the vehicle owned by a company. Collection of premium for PA coverage for such vehicle is prohibited. Such a contract is void. In the present case the policy given is to the company. Though there was collection for PA cover the clause is void and this Forum cannot insist such contractual term. The husband of the complainant was not an owner of the vehicle. He is no way concerned with the policy. Therefore the claim was repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.
4. The 3rd opposite party who is a proforma party filed version admitting the factum of taking policy and asserting the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
5. The complainant filed affidavit as deposition of PW.1. The Assistant Manager of the opposite parties 1 and 2 at their office in Vijayawada filed affidavit as deposition of DW.1. Exs.A1 to A10 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked on behalf of the opposite parites.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed memo of written arguments.
7. The points for determination are:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
Point No.1:
8. The opposite parties 1 and 2 had given a policy to the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 16 BK 2299 owned by the 3rd opposite party. Ex.A1 copy of policy shows that there was a previous policy during the year 2011-12. The policy relevant to this case covered by Ex.A1 is for one year from 9.10.2012 to 8.11.2013. The schedule of the policy shows coverage of 3rd party basic policy, P.A. to unnamed passengers four in number at Rs.1,00,000/- each, compulsory PA to owner cum driver for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and one employee under Workmen Compensation Act. The 3rd opposite party, a company incorporated, is the owner of the vehicle. According to the opposite parties 1 and 2 personal accident coverage cannot be given in respect of vehicles owned by a firm or company. The opposite parties rely on GR.36 of IMT. According to this GR.36 compulsory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or similar body corporate. Since the company is the owner, the company as such cannot be hold a driving license under head of personal accident coverage. The insurance company had collected premium of Rs.100/- for PA to owner cum driver under the original of Ex.A1. The insurance company though issued policy with compulsory PA coverage to owner cum driver now retracts and says that the coverage is invalid and no amount can be paid towards personal accident to owner cum driver.
9. The deceased P.V. Krishna Rao was driving the vehicle of the company insured with the opposite parties 1 and 2. The vehicle met with an accident and Krishna Rao died on the spot. The complainant wife of Krishna Rao made a claim. The learned counsel for the complainant argues that the opposite parties having issued a policy with PA coverage to owner cum driver cannot now disown the liability taking shelter under GR.36 of IMT Rules and the opposite parties are estopped from disowning the liability. It is true that the company having entered into a contract must be estopped for denying the benefit under contract. But enforcement of such contract would lead to enforcement liability prohibited by law. A court of law or a quasi judicial body like this Forum cannot give direction to enforce such a prohibited clause. Therefore the insurance amount as such cannot be ordered to cover personal accident to owner cum driver and payment of insurance to the legal heirs of the deceased Krishna Rao. However since the opposite parties 1 and 2 made the 3rd opposite party and its management to believe that a person representing the company driving the insured vehicle is covered by policy, the opposite parties may not have taken any other step to have insurance for such person representing company and driving the vehicle. Since the 3rd opposite party was deprived of such benefit under the belief that the policy issued by opposite parties 1 and 2 already covers it, the beneficiaries must be compensated for such misleading contract given by the opposite parties 1 and 2. So to that extent we can safely says that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
10. Ex.A1 says that the policy covers personal accident to 4 unnamed passengers for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each. A premium of Rs.200/- was paid for four unnamed passengers. The deceased Krishna Rao was not the owner of the vehicle. He was not the paid driver of the vehicle. He may not the employee covered by Workmen Compensation Act. Then it is necessary to see if he could be treated as an unnamed passenger or occupant of the vehicle at the time of accident entitled to the policy benefits.
11. This Forum has decided a case in CC.175/2012 in which a person by name Lenin had taken a vehicle on hire and was driving the vehicle. The vehicle met with an accident he died. Since he was not the driver of the vehicle and he was not owner cum driver of the vehicle, this Forum disallowed the complaint. Then the complainant (wife of Lenin) filed an appeal in F.A.No.1034 of 2013 between Cherukuri Kranthi Vs M/s Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd., in A.P. State Commission. The State Commission had allowed appeal on 27.1.2014 and held that even though the deceased was driving the vehicle, he can be taken as unnamed passenger/occupant in the car and therefore he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as insurance amount under PA cover to unnamed passengers of the vehicle. The opposite parties 1 and 2 in this case could have allowed insurance amount treating the deceased person as unnamed passenger in the vehicle and covered by the policy and they would have paid to complainant Rs.1,00,000/- compensation instead of rejecting the claim. Therefore in this connection also we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Point No.2:
13. In view of the answer on point no.1 that there is deficiency in servie on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2, firstly in issuing a policy with an invalid coverage and misleading the applicant and secondly in totally repudiating the claim without allowing the insurance amount as PA claim to unnamed passenger, we are of the opinion that the complainant and other legal heirs of Krishna Rao are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as insurance amount under the sum PA cover to unnamed passenger and they are also entitled to reasonable compensation from the opposite parties 1 and 2 for misleading the insurance cover given by the opposite parties 1 and 2. We assess compensation reasonably at Rs.50,000/-. We are therefore of the opinion that the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased Krishna Rao are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite parties 1 and 2. They are also entitled to interest on the amount of Rs.1,00,00/- from 16.4.2013 date of repudiation till realization. The complainant is entitled to costs of Rs.3,000/-. The complainant is receiving these benefits for and on behalf of all the legal heirs of P.V. Krishna Rao.
14. In the result this complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a., from 16.4.2013 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs to the complainant. The amounts awarded shall be paid within one month from the date of the award failing which the compensation amount and costs shall also carry interest @9% p.a., from the due date till realization. The complaint for rest of the reliefs is dismissed.
Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of June, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
P. Lakshmi Manorama The Assistant Manager of OPs 1 & 2;
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 Photocopy of insurance premium
Ex.A2 Photocopy of motor claim form.
Ex.A3 Photocopy of personal accident claim form.
Ex.A4 12.03.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to Ops.
Ex.A5 03.04.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by Op.2 to OP.3
Ex.A6 05.04.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.A7 16.04.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by Op.2 to OP.3
Ex.A8 03.06.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to Ops.
Ex.A9 Photocopy of family member certificate.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Photocopy of Indian Motor Tariff rules and regulations.
Ex.B2 Photocopy of report list of the vehicle.
PRESIDENT
