Haryana

StateCommission

A/266/2016

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWARNA DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

YOGESH GUPTA

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     266 of 2016

Date of Institution:     30.03.2016

Date of Decision :     18.08.2016

 

1.     IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Karnal through its Manager, Main Market, Sector-8, Urban Estate, Karnal.

2.     The General Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited 6330, Second Floor, above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Smt. Swarna Devi wife of late Shri Madan Kumar @ Madan Lal, Resident of Village Sandohi Post Office Sangoha, Tehsil and District Karnal. 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                    This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated February 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.424 of 2012, filed by Smt. Swarna Devi-complainant/respondent, seeking compensation on account of death of her husband-Madan Kumar @ Madan Lal, was accepted. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…………we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to make the payment of Rs.one lac to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.09.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Party shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

2.                Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR-05AD-296 owned by Devi Ram s/o Rakeshwar Dass, was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period March 3^rd, 2011 to March 2^nd, 2012, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-5 with personal accident benefit of Rs.1.00 lac.

3.                On December 22^nd, 2011 the motor cycle, while being driven by Madan Kumar @ Madan Lal, met with an accident, as a result of which Madan Lal suffered injuries and died. F.I.R. No.686 dated December 23^rd, 2011 (Exhibit C-7), under Section 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Karnal Sadar. The Insurance Company was informed. The complainant-widow of deceased filed claim with the Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.1.00 lac on account of personal accident cover but her claim was repudiated on the ground that the deceased Madan Lal was not covered under the policy because he was not the owner of the Motor Cycle. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.                The opposite party-appellant contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that the Insurance Company had undertaken to indemnify the insured-driver for personal accident subject to provision of GR-36A of India Motor Tariff. The deceased Madan Lal was not the registered owner of the motor cycle and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the complainant, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the order of the District Forum by placing reliance upon GR-36A of India Motor Tariff, reproduced as under:-

“GR.36:      Personal Accident (PA) Cover under Motor Policy (not applicable to vehicles covered under Section E, F and G of Tariff for Commercial Vehicles)

A.      Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver

Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an “effective” driving license is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section.

Cover is provided to the Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co–driver.

 

NB.             This provision deals with Personal Accident cover and only the registered owner in person is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/ she holds an effective driving license.  Hence compulsory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or a similar body corporate or where the owner-driver does not hold an effective driving license.  In all such cases, where compulsory PA cover cannot be granted, the additional premium for the compulsory P.A. cover for the owner - driver should not be charged and the compulsory P. A. cover provision in the policy should also be deleted. Where the owner-driver owns more than one vehicle, compulsory PA cover can be granted for only one vehicle as opted by him/her.

The scope of the cover, Capital Sum Insured (CSI) and the annual premium payable under this section are as under:-

TYPE OF VEHICLES	CAPITAL SUM INSURED (Rs.)	PREMIUM (Rs.)	COVER
Motorised Two Wheelers	1 lakh	50/-	i) 100% of CSI for Death, Loss of Two Limbs or sight of both eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.  ii) 50% of CSI for Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye. iii)100% for Permanent Total Disablement from injuries other than named above.
Private Cars	2 lakhs	100/-	i) 100% of CSI for Death, Loss of Two Limbs or sight of both eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.  ii)50% of CSI for Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye. iii)100% for Permanent Total Disablement from injuries other than named above
Commercial vehicles	2 lakhs	100/-	i) 100% of CSI for Death, Loss of Two Limbs or sight of both eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.  ii) 50% of CSI for Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye. iii)100% for Permanent Total Disablement from injuries other than those named above.

 

7.                A bare reading of GR-36A reflects that the Personal Accident was provided only to the Owner-Driver. As per Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-5/Annexure A-4), the benefit of Personal Accident under the heading “Limit of Liability” as per Section III for Owner-Driver (CSI) is Rs.1.00 lac.  Section III of the policy reveals that in case of death of owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured, etc., he was entitled to 100% compensation. The policy clearly stipulates as under:-

                   “1)     This cover is subject to

 (a)    The owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein;

(b)     The owner-driver is the insured named in this policy.

                                xxx”

8.                Reliance can be placed upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Havaben & Anr, 2013 (4) C.P.J. 80 (N.C.) and IFFCO Tokio Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus Sheetalben Nileshbhai Surti, 2014(3) C.P.C. 370 (N.C.).

9.                Indisputably, deceased Madan Lal was not the owner of the motor cycle and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay Personal Accident benefit to the complainant. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.              The 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/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 18.08.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL