Haryana

StateCommission

A/217/2016

HDFC ERGO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUKHDEVI - Opp.Party(s)

PRADEEP KUMAR

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.217  of 2016

                                      Date of Institution:14.03.2016

                                      Date of Decision:14.09.2017

 

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.237, 2^nd Floor, Sector 12, U.E, Karnal through its authorized officer.

 

                                                …Appellant

 

Versus

 

Sukhdevi W/o Late Sh. Parwara resident of village Chuharmajra, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                …Respondent

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:     Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.R.C.Gupta, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                    It was alleged by the complainant that Avtar Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh was owner of car bearing registration No.HR-05X-7303 insured with opposite party (in short “OP”)/appellant. On 14.03.2011 her husband Parwara Ram (since deceased) was going in the car. When he was near Bansal Rice Mills, a cow suddenly appeared on the road. While trying to save cow, he lost control over the vehicle and met with an accident. He was immediately shifted to hospital and was given treatment at various places, but, ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 23.03.2011.  As he was driving the vehicle and was having valid driving license, so he was entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- as mentioned in the insurance policy. She submitted claim, but, no fruitful result was came out. So, O.P. be directed to pay compensation as prayed for.

2.                In reply it was alleged by OP that at the time of accident Parwara Ram was working as Block Agriculture Officer and was not paid driver. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy owner/driver was covered and not any other person. So, she was not entitled for any compensation.

3.                After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint  vide impugned order dated  18.01.2016 and directed as under:-

“As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.two lac to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.08.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.11,000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses.”

4.                Aggrieved therefrom, OP has preferred this appeal.

5.                Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that when Parwara Ram borrowed car from Avtar Singh he stepped into his shoes and was entitled for compensation. Learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that he was entitled for compensation. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana expressed in NIA Vs. Rameshwar.

7.                This argument is devoid of any force. Hon’ble High Court dealt this point when an application was filed for compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 (in short “ M.V. Act”). Contrary to the aforesaid findings it has been pointed by Hon’ble High Court in similar cases that third person cannot be considered as owner/driver. Reference to this effect can made to FAO No.5832 of 2011 titled as UIIC Vs. Sumitra and Anr. decided on 05.05.2017.

8.                Further more a person can asked for compensation on the basis of terms and conditions of insurance policy. If there is any deficiency in service as per policy, only then one can file the complaint. Term owner/driver is clearly mentioned in GR-36 of IMT which is as under:-

“i.       The owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle.

                   ii.       The owner-driver is the insured in the policy and

iii.      The owner-driver possess valid driving license at  the time of accident.”

As per this provision, if owner is driving car, then only he can claim compensation as per policy Ex.C-1 and not otherwise. No extra premium was paid for compensation qua any other person.

9.                In these circumstances, when Parwara Ram was not owner of the vehicle, complainant was not entitled for compensation and OP rightly repudiated her claim. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect, so impugned order dated 18.01.2016 is set aside, appeal allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.              Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case. 

 

September 14^th,  2017                       Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K. Bishnoi

                                                             Member                                Judicial Member

                                                            Addl. Bench                           Addl. Bench