IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of April, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 142/2013 (Filed on 08.11.2013)
Between:
Sumangala,
Kalayil, Kurumpakara,
Enadimangalam Village,
Adoor Taluk. … Complainant.
(By Adv. R. Harikrishnan)
And:
- Regional Manager,
New India Assurance-
Co. Ltd., Regional Office,
Kandankulanji Towers,
P.B. No. 1049, M.G. Road,
Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 011.
- Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Kunnithottathil Towers,
St. Peters’ Junction,
Ring Road, Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. P.D. Varghese)
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: Complainant’s husband Krishnadasan Nair is the registered owner of an autorikshaw bearing registration No. KL-26B/5491 having valid insurance. On 28.02.2013 while the insured Krishnadasan Nair was driving the said vehicle through Adoor-Pathanapuram road and on the way while giving side to a lorry, the log loaded in the lorry hit on the on the neck of the insured and he died due to the injuries sustained to him in the said accident.
3. Complainant is the legal heir of the deceased Krishnadasan Nair. For getting insurance claim of Rs. 2 lakhs, complainant filed an application before the second opposite party and in the application it is clearly stated that the deceased Krishnadasan Nair driven the vehicle for his personal use. Second opposite party assured that her grievance will be redressed.
4. But the said application was rejected by the opposite parties by saying that deceased who was driving the autorikshaw at the time of accident do not possess badge for driving a passenger vehicle. But at the time of the accident, deceased driven the vehicle for personal use and not for carrying passengers in it. A person can drive the vehicle for his own use without a badge. Hence the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting the insurance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
5. In this case, opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: Opposite parties admitted the issuance of a policy in the name of the deceased Krishnadasan Nair for his autorikshaw. While issuing the policy, the opposite parties have collected an amount of Rs. 100/- as personal accident premium for owner driver covering Rs. 2 lakhs as per the terms and conditions contained in the policy. It is admitted that the wife of the deceased had filed an application claiming the personal accident benefit of Rs. 2 lakhs. While processing the claim, it was revealed that the insured was driving the vehicle without a valid badge authorizing him to drive the type of the vehicle he was driving. He was driving the vehicle without an effective driving licence. As per Sec.3(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section (2) of Sec.75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. After considering the above said facts, opposite parties closed the claim of the complainant as there is a clear violation of policy conditions. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any amount as prayed by the complainant. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, Exts. A1 to A3 and B1. After closure of evidence, complainant’s counsel filed an argument note and both sides were heard.
8. The Point: The allegation of the complainant is that her husband Krishnadasan Nair was the owner of an autorikshaw bearing registration No. KL-26B/5491 having valid insurance policy and he had driving licence to drive an atorikshaw. On 28.02.2013, while the insured Krishnadasan was driving the vehicle through Adoor-Pathanapuram road and on the way while giving side to a lorry, the log loaded in the lorry hit on the neck of the insured and he died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. So the complainant filed an application before the opposite parties claiming the personal accident benefit of Rs. 2 lakhs. But it was rejected by the opposite parties by saying that there is violation of policy condition as the said Krishnadasan Nair does not have a valid badge authorizing him to drive a passenger vehicle. According to the complainant, a person can drive his vehicle for his own use, whether it is passenger or private with an ordinary driving licence and the deceased had an ordinary driving licence. Hence the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination along with 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the repudiation letter dated 15.10.2013 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. A2 is the insurance certificate issued by the opposite parties to the complainant’s husband. Ext. A3 is the FIR filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor in respect of the accident of the complainant’s husband.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had lodged a claim with them. While processing the claim, it was revealed that the insured Krishnadasan was driving the vehicle without a valid badge authorizing him to drive the type of the vehicle, he was driving. As per India Motor Tariff, the personal accident cover to the owner of the insured vehicle holding an effective driving licence is termed as owner-driver for the purpose of the personal accident claim. As per Sec. 3(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act-no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle. So according to the opposite parties, complainant is not entitled to get the claim and there is no deficiency in service from their part.
11. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, nobody was examined before the Forum. They have only produced one document which is marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B1 is the policy schedule-cum-certificate of insurance.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the policy in question and the accidental death of the complainant’s husband. The only dispute of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled to get the policy benefits as the deceased had driven the vehicle without a badge which is a violation of the policy conditions. But according to the complainant, badge is not necessary if the registered owner drives the vehicle for his personal use and the accident was occurred during when the deceased was driving his autorikshaw for his own use and his driving at the time of the accident was not for carrying passengers or for getting rent or otherwise.
13. But the opposite parties’ contention is that badge is necessary for driving a transport vehicle. For substantiating their contention, they are relying Sec. 3(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 which is as follows: “No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorized him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section (2) of Sec. 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do”. But the said section is silent whether badge is necessary for driving a transport vehicle by its registered owner for his own personal use. At the same time, the said section specifically stipulates that badge is necessary if it is hired for his own use or rented under any scheme. So it is clear that badge is not mandatory for driving a transport vehicle by its registered owner for his own personal use and in this case, the deceased was driving his own autorikshaw for his own personal use. Moreover, this contention of the complainant is also not challenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, the repudiation of the complainant’s claim by the opposite parties cannot be justified and the repudiation of the complainant’s claim is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant. Therefore, this complaint is allowable.
14. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2014.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sumangala. B .
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Repudiation letter dated 15.10.2013 issued by the opposite
parties to the complainant.
A2 : Insurance certificate issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
A3 : FIR filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Adoor in respect of the accident.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Policy schedule-cum-certificate of insurance.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Sumangala, Kalayil, Kurumpakara, Enadimangalam
Village, Adoor Taluk.
- Regional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, Kandankulanji Towers, P.B. No. 1049,
M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 011.
- Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Kunnithottathil Towers, St. Peters’ Junction,
Ring Road, Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
