BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.192 of 2015

Date of Instt. 06.05.2015

Date of Decision :17.09.2015

Harbhajan Kaur aged about 62 years wife of Late Surinder Pal Singh R/o 134/8 Village Boota, Post Office Model Town, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 356 Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Amanjot Kaur Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that Surinder Pal Singh R/o 134/8 Village Boota, Post Office Model Town, District Jalandhar got insured his scooter bearing registration No.PB-08-AM-5189 make Bajaj Chetak vide policy No.36100031130 200002428 for the period from 20.11.2013, 10:23:26 AM to 19.11.2014,11:59:59 PM with opposite party. The said policy covered the personal accident cover for owner driver to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the said policy holder Surinder Pal Singh nominated his wife Harbhajan Kaur complainant to get the claim for personal accident cover in the case of his death in the accident. It is mentioned that Surinder Pal Singh accompanied his son Nirmal Singh and approached the opposite party for getting the above said policy and at the time of obtaining the policy from the opposite party, official of the opposite party obtained RC of scooter bearing No.PB-08AM-5189 and the copy of the driving licence No.PB-08200600 22510 valid from 5.12.2011 to 4.12.2016 from the policy holder Surinder Pal Singh. But terms and conditions of the said policy were not given and explained to said Surinder Pal Singh and from the mere perusal of the policy in the column of limitation to use, it only mentions "the policy cover use for any purpose other than: (a) Hire or Reward, (b) Organized racing or (c) Speed testing" and except this no other terms and conditions or limitations were made clear or understand to Surinder Pal Singh. On 12.11.2014 said Surinder Pal Singh was coming from his house to Model Town Market at his Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.PB-08-AM-5189 alongwith Bobby Singh. When they reached near Sant Property Dealer, little away from Hotel Tara Mount, a Santro Car bearing No.DL-2C-AD-6719 driven by Lt.Col.Inder Singh son of Joginder Singh R/o 80, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, District Jalandhar in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn in zig-zag manner came from the opposite side and hit in Activa bearing No.PB-08-BC-8403 and the Bajaj Chetak Scooter of the said Surinder Pal Singh and after it hit in the gate of Kothi No.612-R of GS Bhatti, Naresh Kumar son of Ami Chand R/o H.No.307/2, Rameshwar Colony near Ambedkar Bhawan, Jalandhar. The rider of the Activa got injuries and said Surinder Pal Singh and Bobby Singh both fell down from the scooter and sustained grievous injuries. Said Surinder Pal Singh sustained injuries on head, right arm and on all parts of body. Surinder Pal Singh was first taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar thereafter he was shifted to Ghai Hospital, Jalandhar where said Surinder Pal Singh died at 7.30PM on the same day due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. Scooter of the said Surinder Pal Singh also got badly damaged and same requires about Rs.8000/- to get it repaired. Complainant Harbhajan Kaur lodged a complaint with the opposite party vide claim No.PA Owner Driver Death Claim No.361000/31/14/02/900000001 on account of death of said Surinder Pal Singh being his nominee. Complainant was stunned to receive the letter dated 12.3.2015 from the office of opposite party whereby they have repudiated the claim of the complainant without any logical and valid reason on the false and frivolous ground on being non maintainable as per terms and conditions of the policy and opposite party has wrongly alleged that driving licence No.PB-0820060022510 of said Surinder Pal Singh was not valid for driving scooter. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay her Rs.1 Lac alongwith interest. She has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the opposite party, since the owner-cum-driver of the scooter i.e the deceased was not having licence to drive scooter at the time of accident. It is wrong that this is the same driving licence which was submitted by the opposite party at the time of obtaining the said policy. In fact no driving licence whatsoever was produced by the deceased Surinder Pal Singh at the time of taking of policy of insurance. There was no question of disclosing to the deceased that the driving licence was not valid and advising him to obtain another driving licence. The complainant never approached the opposite party after the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.C/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 and Ex.OP/2 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. It is not disputed that Surinder Pal Singh deceased husband of the complainant had obtained an insurance policy Ex.C4 which was valid from 20.11.2013 to 19.11.2014. At the time of arguments, it was also not disputed that said Surinder Pal Singh while driving one scooter as alleged in the complaint met with an accident with car and was injured and subsequently died. The complainant lodged claim with opposite party insurance company being nominee but opposite party insurance company repudiated her claim on the ground that deceased was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Ex.C5 is copy of driving licence of the deceased. It was only valid for LMV i.e Light Motor Vehicle (NT). Now the question which fall for determination is, whether a person holding a driving licence to drive LMV is competent to drive two wheeler i.e scooter? Counsel for the complainant contended that a person holding a driving licence of LMV is also authorized to drive scooter. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon Smt.Sumitra Devi Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Appeal No.1363/2008, decided on 9.4.2009 by Hon'ble State Commission of Rajasthan. We have carefully considered the above contention advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. No doubt the above cited authority support the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant but in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Zaharulnisha and others, 2008 ACJ 1928, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"18.In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant insurance company can not be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of section 10(2) of M.V.Act".

7. Further in Subash Chander Vs. United Insurance Company Limited, First Appeal No.980 of 2007, decided on 8.6.2012 by our own Hon'ble State Commission, it has been held as under:-

"18. In the present case also, Ramesh Kumar was holding the driving licence of LMV. The LMV was valid only for driving car/jeep. But it is not valid for driving two wheeler. Therefore, Ramesh Kumar was not holding valid driving licence at the time when he was driving the motorcycle TVS Victor. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and it was rightly held that the complainants are not held liable to any compensation".

8. The ratio of above cited authorities is applicable on the facts of the present case. So, in our opinion, the deceased was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such opposite party insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

9. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

17.09.2015 Member Member President