BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.924 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.42 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM KADAPA
Between:
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional
Office situated at D.No.2/789, 1st Floor
Sairam Towers, Nagarajupet, Kadapa
Rep. by competent authority
The Authorised Signatory
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Regional Office, 5th Floor, Surya Towers
S.D.Road, Secunderabad
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
Smt N.Rama Devi W/o N.Prakkira Reddy
R/o Kondavandlapalli, Ramapuram Mandal
Kadapa District
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.N.V.Radhakrishna
Counsel for the Respondent Sri K.Parandharma Chary
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant by name N.Pakkira Reddy purchased Hero Honda Passion plus motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 04G 5745 and the same was insured with the opposite party under personal accident insurance of motor cycle package policy No.611201/31/04/00151. As per the terms of the policy the sum assured is Rs.1,00,000/- in case of death of owner of the vehicle. On 3.9.2004 the husband of the complainant met with an accident near Kamadlavanka on Rayachotty – Kadapa high way and died at the spot. The complainant informed the accident to the opposite party and submitted all the relevant records. The opposite party vide their letter repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant has failed to submit valid driving licence of the deceased. The driving license of husband of the complainant said to have been lost in the accident and inspite of best efforts the complainant could not trace it. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 20.12.2006 requesting the opposite party to settle the claim. As there was no response from the opposite party the complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.one lakh with interest, compensation and costs.
3. The opposite party resisted the case contending that as per Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified form holding or obtaining such a license provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s license may also drive the vehicle. The deceased did not possess any driving licence either LLR or permanent. The opposite party company repudiated the claim of the complainant on 1.11.2006. Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed her affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. The opposite party neither affidavit nor documents were filed.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.one lakh with interest @9% per annum from the date of accident till payment together with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the husband of the complainant had not possessed the driving license at the time of the accident and that he had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
7. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the sum assured under the insurance policy and if so to what relief?
8. There is no dispute of the fact that the complainant’s husband was the owner of Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 04G 5745 and got it insured with the opposite party insurance company under the motor cycle package No.611201/31/04/00151 for a sum of Rs.one lakh. On 3.9.2004 the complainant’s husband met with an accident and died at the spot near Kamandla Vanka on Rayachoti – Kadapa main road. The complainant has submitted the claim application along with copies of FIR, report of Postmortem examination, inquest report and charge sheet.
9. A perusal of the FIR and charge sheet would reveal that a lorry coming from the opposite direction dashed to the motor cycle being ridden by the complainant’s husband. It is the contention of the complainant that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry and that his driving license verified by the opposite party company at the time of issuing the insurance policy was lost at the time of the accident. Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 casts obligation on the driver of a vehicle to possess an effective driving license.
10. Though the complainant has contended that the opposite party has verified her husband’s driving license at the time of issuing the insurance policy and that the driving license was lost in the mishap the complainant has not adduced any positive evidence and in such circumstances the contention of the opposite party company that for obtaining insurance policy, the submission of driving license is not a condition precedent gains significance. It is a matter of common sense the owner of a motor vehicle is not expected to possess driving license as he has the option of permitting it to be driven by a person authorized thereof. It is not very difficult for the complainant to obtain copy of driving license of her husband if really he was issued any driving license. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstances, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant that her husband was issued a driving license and that driving license was lost at the time of the accident. The appeal as such deserves to be allowed.
In the result the appeal is allowed the order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.22.12.2010
KMK*
