Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

There is delay of 8 days in filing the appeal.  For that purpose Misc.application no.1422/2009 has been filed.  We have gone through misc. application.  Delay has been properly explained by giving just and sufficient cause in para nos.3, 4, 5 & 7 of the application. Delay is very marginal one. Hence we condone the delay by allowing this misc. application subject to cost of `500/- to be paid to respondent.  Misc.application for condonation of delay stands disposed of.

This is an appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.77/2009 decided on 03/8/2009, whereby forum below allowed the complaint and directed LIC to pay to the complainant a sum of `50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 19/12/2008 till actual realization and also directed to pay `1000/- towards cost of the proceeding, hence LIC has filed this appeal.  Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

Respondent Smt.Sangita’s husband had obtained insurance policy bearing no.942395145 for the total sum assured `50,000/- under Table 91/16 with half yearly premium payable.  Life assured expired on 07/4/2007.  LIC paid basic claim of 51,144/- to the respondent. However, LIC repudiated the claim preferred by the widow towards the double accident benefit on the ground that respondent’s husband has failed to submit driving license.  Aggrieved by the rejection of double accident benefit, the consumer complaint was filed by the widow of the deceased assured.  In the complaint, complainant pleaded that after death of her husband in the accident, she had preferred claim along with other documents with the LIC.  LIC sanctioned amount of `50,000/- but did not grant her double accident benefit and, therefore, she filed consumer complaint for recovery of `50,000/- along with interest, `10,000/- by way of mental harassment and `5000/- towards cost.

LIC contested the matter by filing written statement.  According to LIC, policy was subject to terms and conditions and as per clause 10(2)(b), if any person sustains accident while driving the vehicle and if at the time of accident he is not found possessing driving license issued by competent authority, then as per that rule he is not entitled to get policy benefits.  LIC pleaded that on 19/12/2008 when death occurred in the accident, complainant’s husband was not having any driving license or at least she had not produced any driving license standing in the name of her deceased husband and, therefore, relying on Hon’ble National Commission’s judgement in the case of Mohanlal Tiwari v/s. LIC of India reported in 2009(I) CPR 203(NC), LIC had rightly repudiated the claim.  Therefore, they pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.

However, relying upon affidavits and documents placed on record and considering judgement of Madhya Pradesh State Commission in the case of Study Circle Society & others v/s. LIC of India reported in 2000 CCJ 870, forum below held that LIC had failed to establish that life assured or insured was not having any license on the day of accident and since this fact was not proved by the LIC, LIC was duty bound to pay sum of `50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and, therefore, it passed award accordingly.  Aggrieved by this award, LIC has filed this appeal.

We heard submissions of Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the appellant and    Mr.Prabhakar Jadhav-Advocate for the respondent.

We are finding that in the repudiation letter sent on 19/12/2008 it was clearly told to the respondent –Smt.Sangita Sadhu Gorad that for giving accident benefit policy, driving license of her husband was necessary and since driving license was not produced as per their letter dated 06/12/2008 they were repudiating the claim of respondent so far as accident benefit is concerned.  It was the duty of the respondent in fact to place before LIC as well as before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, who had filed complaint claiming double accident benefit for her deceased husband to produce and prove that her deceased husband was having valid driving license when accident took place.  So if she would have produced valid driving license of her husband before LIC, then LIC would have no doubt allowed the double accident claim benefit to the respondent, but what we are finding that according to LIC, widow had not proved before LIC the fact that her husband was having valid driving license on the day he met with an accident i.e. on 07/4/2007 and production of valid driving license was sine-qua-non for the complainant/respondent to claim double accident benefit from LIC.  Mr.Vidyarthi fairly conceded that even today if respondent produces proof of valid driving license her deceased husband was having on 07/4/2007, LIC would pay `50,000/- towards double accident benefit.  But since respondent is silent on that aspect of the matter and since respondent had not produced proof of the fact that her husband was having valid driving license on 07/4/2007 when he met with an accident, LIC was not obliged in law to pay double accident benefit to the respondent.  Award passed by the forum below in favour of the respondent is therefore appearing to be bad in law.

Mr.Vidyarthi placed reliance on the judgement of National Commission in support of his contention.  In this citation the same point was involved.  LIC was the Insurance company and Mohan Lal Tiwari was the petitioner, who was denied accident claim benefit.  Facts were as under:-

Complainant’s son met with an accident while going on a motor cycle and died.  Insurance company paid insured amount but did not pay double accident benefit to the complainant.  Complaint was disposed of by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directing complainant to submit driving license of his son.  Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed. Hence revision was filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble National Commission.  Hon’ble National Commission held that there is no dispute that in absence of proof of driving license being held by deceased insured, the benefit of accident policy could not be given to him as per condition No.10(2)(b) of the policy and Hon’ble National Commission held that since revision petitioner failed to produce from the very inception driving license of the deceased, LIC was within its right to repudiate the claim of double accident benefit.  Said ratio is clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of our case and, therefore, we hold that forum below erred in law in allowing the claim in respect of double accident benefit in favour of respondent when she had not produced on record valid driving license of her deceased husband and, therefore, by allowing this appeal we will have to quash and set aside the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  Hence the following order:-

                                      ORDER

1.     Appeal is allowed.

2.     Impugned judgement passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is quashed and set aside.

3.     Consumer complaint no.77/2009 stands dismissed.

4.     Parties are left to bear their own costs.

5.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.