Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

The appeal has been filed by the OP Insurance Company against the Order dated 21-04-2015, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar (in short, District Forum), in C. C. No. 23/2014, whereby the complaint case has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP Insurance Company thereof has preferred this appeal.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that, her daughter died of a road accident on 12-06-2012.  Following such accidental death of her daughter, a claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company.  However, the OP Insurance Company illegally repudiated the said claim of the Complainant.  Hence, the case was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

In opposition, it is stated by the op Insurer that time and again it asked the claimant to furnish valid driving license of the deceased, who was the owner of the said vehicle to process the concerned claim, but the claimant did not provide the same.  As such, the claim was repudiated and decision to this effect was communicated to the claimant vide letter dated 22-08-2013.

The moot point for determination is whether the impugned order is a justified one, or not.

Decision with reasons

It appears from the photocopy of letter dated 22-07-2013 that the Appellant asked the Respondent to provide a copy of the permanent driving license of Prativa Saha, since deceased. It further appears, in view of non-submission of the said document by the Respondent, the Appellant repudiated the claim concerned.

Referring to Sec. III of the Private Car Package Policy of the Appellant, it is contended by the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant that it is a condition precedent for the purpose of getting a claim settled that owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 at the time of accident.   However, the Respondent, despite repeated reminders,  failed to meet this essential requirement.  As such the instant claim was rightly repudiated by the Appellant.

In this respect, it is averred by the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent that at the material point of accident, the vehicle was driven by a hired driver, who was holding valid license and such fact can be evident from the documents on record. 

From the available documents on record, it appears that at the material time of accident, one Sri Prasanta Mohanta was on the wheel and said Sri Mohanta holds D. L. No. WB-63-20120854256 that is valid up to 18-03-2032. 

Now, let us consider, on the basis of available documents on record, as to whether this document was indeed indispensable for the purpose of settlement of the PA claim in question. 

Although the Appellant has banked upon Sec. III of the said Policy to drive home his point, it appears from the front page of the policy document ( Driver’s Clause) that the policy covers any person including the Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license.  Such crystal clear stipulation on the body of the policy, which is very much a part and parcel of the policy document, to our mind, makes a hollow of the claim of the Appellant that it was incumbent on the part of the Owner to hold valid DL.

Also, on a reference to the office website of the Appellant, we find that there are three types of plans available in respect of car insurance, viz., ‘Best Value’, ‘Standard’, and ‘Flexible’.  On further scrutiny, we find that the Appellant extends ‘PA Cover for Owner/Driver’ under each of the aforesaid plans.  It further transpires from another website, i.e., https://www.demystifyinsurance.com/what-does-my-bajaj-allianz-motor-insurance-policy-cover/, that the motor insurance policy introduced by the Appellant provides compulsory personal accident cover for individual “owner/driver” of the vehicle up to Rs. 2 lakhs for a premium of Rs. 100/-.  On going through the body of policy cover, it appears that the Appellant was charged a sum of Rs. 100/- as compulsory PA cover premium.  

Although the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant left no stone unturned to impress upon the fact that under the Private Car Package Policy, Owner and Driver ought to be the same and identical person, we afraid, no such clarification is given in the policy wordings; rather, on due perusal of the front page of the insurance policy, we find that the policy covers any person including the Insured provided the person on the wheel holds valid DL. 

All these discernable facts only fortify the decision of the Ld. District Forum that the repudiation of Respondent’s claim was not tenable in the eye of law. However, on going through the ordering portion of the impugned order it transpires that the Ld. District Forum allowed both interest and a lump sum amount as compensation.  As we know, under the Consumer Protection Act, there is no such scope to award both lump sum compensation and interest simultaneously.  The impugned order is, therefore,  modified to eradicate this legal infirmity.  Otherwise, we find the impugned order perfectly justified.

The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/771/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is modified as under:-

OP is directed to pay, within 30 days hence, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as insurance benefit to the Complainant together with interest @7% p.a. over Rs. 2,00,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint case, i.e., 07-04-2014 till full and final payment is made and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.