SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

    This complaint has been filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party  for getting an order directing  OP to pay a sum of  Rs.15,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased insured(complainants) with interest and cost of the proceedings alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

    It is the case  of the complainant that on 26/8/2019 while she was  travelling  as pillion rider in the motor cycle KL-58B/4374 ridden  by the 3^rd complainant, she fell down and succumbed due to the injury sustained.  The Peravoor police registered crime No.430/2019 in connection with the accident and postmortem of the deceased also was conducted.  After investigation , the Peravoor police filed charge sheet against the 3^rd  complainant.  The deceased Nani was the registered owner of the Motor cycle and having valid insurance coverage (policy No. 571100311810011443) at the time of accident and the 3^rd complainant  was having valid driving license also. After  submitting the  insurance claim , the OP failed to disburse the  amount to the complainants.  Complainants submitted that as per the  norms of the policy issued by the OP, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased.  Even though the complainants approached the OP on many occasions, they are taking negative attitude towards the complainants and the amount is not disbursed to them so far. The OP defaulted in the service  to be tendered to the complainants.  Hence this complaint.

       It is the case of opposite party that they denies the entire allegations in the complaint.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainants never approached or reported to the OP regarding the alleged personal accident  claim before instituting  complaint before this Commission.  The OP was denied the opportunity to peruse the alleged claim and  submits that this complaint is a premature one and is not maintainable.  The OP submits that the motor cycle KL-58B/4374 was  insured in favor of  Nani.A under two wheeler package policy No.571100311810011443.  The complainants are well aware  that they are not entitled to claim compensation under the above said policy since the vehicle was driven not by the  registered owner-driver at the relevant time of the alleged accident.  So the  OP submits that the complainants knowing the fact that the vehicle was driven by the son of the deceased  registered   owner/insured preferred the claim with ill motive. The personal accident coverage policy is strictly in accordance  with the terms and conditions and the  claim of personal accident cover has been well enumerated in the policy.  The OP states that since the deceased was not the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident , the complainants are not entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of  registered owner/ insured Nani, the claim does not come under the purview of the Sec.III personal accident  cover for owner –driver,  the claim is not maintainable.  The case of the complainants is that son of the deceased was driving the vehicle and the deceased  Nani was travelling as a pillion rider on the  motor cycle at the relevant time of the alleged accident.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

   The evidence adduced consists of chief-affidavit of  complainant No.3,  Exts.A1 to A8.  Chief affidavit of Senior Divisional Manager of OP , Exts.B1&B2 . 

    After that the learned counsel of OP made oral argument and submitted two decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh 2021 KHC 5256 and Hon’ble  High Court of Punjab and Hariyana 2021 KHC 4052.

  In this case it is not disputed that Mrs. Nani.A mother of complainants 2 to 6, W/o 1^st complainant, had taken a two wheeler package policy with OP having No.571100311810011443 , from 26.2.2019 to 25/2/2020.  Schedule of premium personal accident Rs.295.00/-.  It is also not disputed that while the policy was in effective  on 26/8/2019 the insured succumbed due to accident happened to her  while she was a pillion rider in the insured vehicle driven by complainant No.3.  It is also not disputed that the deceased was not having the driving license.  OP have  relied on Ext.B1 policy that mentions in   Section 3 therein that the personal accident cover is to owner-cum-driver.  It is further provided that (a) the cover is subject to the owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured, (b) the owner-driver is the insured named in the policy and (c) the owner –driver holds an effective license.  Hence essentially the coverage is limited to the driver who is also the insured owner.  In the instant case, the insured owner Mrs. Nani.A was  not the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.  Hence as per the terms of the policy the deceased is not covered as she was not the driver.  Hence complainants are not entitled to get policy benefit.

   In the result complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts:

A1- copy of FIR

A2- Copy of charge sheet

A3- copy of postmortem certificate

A4- Copy of death certificate

A5-Copy of RC

A6-Insurance policy

A7-Family membership certificate

A8-cpy of Driving license.

B1- certified copy of policy

B2- circular of IRDI

PW1-Lakshmanan.A-complainant No.3

DW1-Ajan.K.G-OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR