Date of Filing:18.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 28.04.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 450 OF 2008 <br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. Kamalamma.S,<br /> W/o Late B.N. Ramesh,<br /> R/at No. 154, Narasimhaiah Building,<br /> Anjaneya Temple Street, <br /> Rajagopala Nagar, Peenya,<br /> Bangalore-560 058. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> National Insurance Company Ltd.,<br /> Division No. IV, No.15, <br /> II Floor, Kumara Krupa Road,<br /> Near Shivananda Circle,<br /> Bangalore-560 001. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,10,000/- in respect of the claim along with interest.<br /> The facts of the case are that, Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-02 EY-4158 was registered in the name of complainant’s husband and it was insured with the opposite party under package policy cover risk on own damages and third party and also personal accident benefit. The policy was valid from 23/3/2007 to 22/3/2008. The said Motor Cycle met with an accident on 14/7/2007 and the same was driven by complainant’s husband Ramesh and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Motor Cycle was also damaged in the accident. The Peenya Police registered a case in Crime No.230/2007. Claim was preferred by the complainant with the opposite party. She submitted necessary documents. Opposite party arranged for survey of Motor Cycle. Initially opposite party informed the complainant that claim will be paid to her and she was asked to get transfer RC in her name. Complainant approached the concerned authority and got transferred the RC of the Motor Cycle and submitted the same to the opposite party. The opposite party instead of settling the claim as promised earlier by letter dated 21/11/2007 as expressed its inability to entertain the claim on flimsy grounds. Complainant got issued legal notice, in spite of the same opposite party has not settled the claim. Therefore, it is the case of the complainant that opposite party has committed deficiency of service. Complainant has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the personal accident claim and Rs. 10,000/- towards damage claim. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party has put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version admitting that the Hero Honda Motor Cycle was insured. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the policy covers risk of personal accident of Rs.1,00,000/- and the liability of the opposite party is as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party appointed surveyor for inspection of the damaged vehicle and for assessment of loss. Sri. V.T. Badiger, Surveyor assessed the loss after inspection of the vehicle and submitted report on 27/9/2007. It is noticed that the rider of the vehicle drove the same without having valid driving license. Hence, it is the case of the opposite party that it is not liable to pay the compensation. It is the case of the opposite party that, rider cum owner of the vehicle had only learners license to drive the Motor Cycle. He was not having permanent driving license. The vehicle should be put “L” plate board. But in this case, no such “L” plate board was present at the time of accident. Hence, there was violation of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The Surveyor assessed the damage caused to the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 7,114/-. The opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on this part. Opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both then parties filed. Documents are also filed. Arguments of both the sides heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the <br /> part of opposite party? <br /> 2. Whether the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is justified in law?<br /> 3. Whether the opposite party can be directed to pay the claim amount?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is admitted case that, complainant Smt. Kamalamma is widow of deceased Ramesh had taken policy. The policy was valid from 23/3/2007 to 22/3/2008. The insurance company’s liability was up to Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is also admitted case of the opposite party that deceased Ramesh was holding a learners driving license as on the date of accident. The unfortunate traffic accident took place on 14/7/2007 when the policy was in force. The only defence taken by the opposite party is that the deceased Ramesh the husband of the complainant was holding learners driving license on the date of accident and therefore claim is not admissible. To this defence the learned advocate for the complainant submitted authority of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore decided in MFA No.4793/2006 between SUNIL V/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, wherein his lordship Mr. Justice Mohan Shantangoudar relying on the judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 has held that Insurance Company cannot deny the claim on the ground that the rider of the vehicle had only learners driving license. In para-2 of the judgment referred above, his lordship has observed as under:-<br /> 2. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.75,000/- in toto with 6% interest. However, the 1st respondent-Insurance Company was not held liable to pay compensation as the claimant had only learner’s license and not the driving license.<br /> <br /> As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., -vs- SWARNASINGH reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531, if a vehicle at the time of accident is driven by a person having learner’s license, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the decree. Hence, the order of the Tribunal below in not fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> So, in view of this authority the opposite party in then present case cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant. Admittedly, the deceased husband of the complainant was having learners driving license on the part on the date of accident. Therefore, the opposite party could have honorably accepted the claim and paid the amount to the widow of the deceased. The opposite party has taken very flimsy and too technical objection that the “L” board was not put up to the Motor Cycle on the date of the accident. This type of objection is fit to be rejected. It is not fair and proper on the part of the opposite party which is a big Insurance Company to reject the claim on such flimsy and technical grounds. The opposite party should have taken a broader and pragmatic view and accepted the claim submitted by the widow of the deceased. In this case, all the facts are admitted. In spite of submission of all the documents and claim form the opposite party repudiated the claim and thereby the complainant was forced to approach this Forum for getting the relief. The opposite party had appointed surveyor to asses the damage caused to the vehicle. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party assessed damage of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.7,114/-. Though the complainant has claim Rs.10,000/- for the damage to the vehicle. The claim to the extent of Rs.7,114/- can be allowed as per the assessment made by the surveyor himself. The complainant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- under the insurance policy since her husband had died in the Motor Cycle accident. The opposite party shall be directed to pay the amount with interest and costs. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party National Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,07,114/- to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay interest on the above amount at 12% interest p.a from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e., on 21/11/007 till payment/realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings to the complainant. <br /> 7. The copy of this Order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge immediately.<br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2008.<br /> Order accordingly <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />