Genesis of this case is a complaint preferred by the complainant Sri Nani Gopal Debnath under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act in short hereinafter) against the opposite parties praying for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 Lac (Rupees Fifteen Lac) under the head of personal accident for owner-driver.     

 

2. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the son of the complainant namely, Jayanta Debnath (now deceased) was the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing No.TR-07-B-5536 (TVS Apache). During life time he got his vehicle insured with National Insurance Company (OP No.2) by purchasing policy having personal accident coverage of Rs.15,00,000/- for owner-driver under package policy. On 02.08.2019 at around 11/11-30 p.m. when the son of the complainant was returning from home by riding his motor bike bearing No. TR-07-B-5536 (TVS Apache), it met with an accident whereby the motor cycle was dashed by a Marati car bearing No. TR-03-M-0352 at Dhajanagar on Udaipur-Agaratala main road. Due to the accident vehicle the son of the complainant received fatal injuries on his person and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Subsequently, after death of his son, the complainant got aware of the fact that his son purchased a policy from OP No.2 in respect of his motor cycle having the coverage of personal accident for owner-driver for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and the complainant was made as nominee by the deceased in the said policy. Thereafter, the complainant placed claim before the Insurance Company (OP No.2) seeking compensation under personal accident coverage for owner-driver for the accidental death of his son but the OP No. 1 & 2 did not settle his claim. Along with his claim he submitted all the necessary documents as per requirement of OP No.2 but inspite of that his claim remained unsettled. Finally, the complainant approached the Commission for redress claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-  excluding Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  

 

3. On receipt of the notice, the OPs appeared and contested the case by filing join written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant. The OPs denied the fact that the motor cycle of the son of the complainant bearing No.TR-07-B-5536 was insured with the OP-2 having the coverage of owner-driver under personal accident at the material time and they issued the insurance certificate subject to terms and conditions. They denied and disputed the contention that the complainant submitted personal accident claim for the vehicle No. TR-07-B-5536.  

 4. The complainant Sri Nani Gopal Debnath examined himself as PW.1. In his examination-in-chief on affidavit he recapitulated the facts that has been stated in the complaint and as such, for the sake of brevity the same is not recapitulated. However, during re-examination, the PW.1 has exhibited the following documents:-

 

 

 

5. On the other hand,  no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite-parties.

 

6. Heard argument of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties.

 

7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the then President of the Commission on 22.06.2023 :-

 

1. Whether the son of the complainant was a consumer ; 

 

2. Whether there has been any deficiency of service caused on the part of the National Insurance Company Ltd. ; 

 

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation for deficiency in service caused by the OP and if, so, what shall be the quantum thereof ; 

 

4. To what other relief/reliefs are the parties entitled ?

 

 

 

8. All the issues are taken up together for discussion.

  

9. According to the complainant his son met with the accident on 02-08-2019 and he died on 03-08-2019 at about 9/9.30 P.M in the G.B.P hospital, Agartala. In support of his contention the petitioner submitted some documents. Concerning the accident a case vide R.K.Pur P/S Case No. 2020 R.K.P 0019 was registered Under Sections 279/304A I.P.C read with Section 184/187 of M.V. Act. on the basis of FIR (Ext.P1) lodged by the father  of the deceased. It was revealed that the son of the complainant met with the accident when his motor cycle was dashed by the offending Marati vehicle bearing No.TR-03-M-0352, resultantly, he sustained injuries and subsequently, died. The post mortem report of the deceased shows that the death was caused due to head injury by impact of some hard and blunt object. So, the documentary evidence couple with the oral evidence of the complainant establishes the fact that the son of the complainant died in a road accident when he was riding the motor cycle No. TR-07-B-5536.

 

10. In support of his contention the petitioner has also submitted the vehicular documents including insurance policy certificate relating to the motor cycle No. TR-07-B-5536 owned by his son. The registration certificate (Ext.P10) makes it clear that Jayanta Debnath, the son of the complainant, was the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing No. TR-07-B-5536(TVS Apache). The driving licence (Ext.P9) issued in the name of Jayanta Debnath (now deceased) shows that he was permitted to drive motor cycle.

 

11. The petitioner submitted the policy certificate (Ext.P8) purchased by his deceased son for his motor cycle bearing No.TR-07-B-5536 from the National Insurance Company Ltd. The motor cycle had got the coverage period from 20.11.2018 to 19.11.2019. The insured met with the accident on 02.08.2019  and died on 03.08.2019 vide death certificate (Ext.P3) meaning thereby it was within the insurance coverage. The schedule of premium of the said policy certificate shows that the insured paid the premium of Rs.750/- towards personal accident coverage (owner driver) and the benefit coverage is Rs.15 Lac. It means in case of accidental death of the insured involving the motor cycle the insurer will pay Rs.15 Lac to the owner-driver (insured) if it happened within the period of insurance coverage. 

 

12. As it appears that the son of the petitioner died within the period of insurance coverage, so, as per contract between the insurance company and the insured (the deceased son of the petitioner), the insurance company cannot escape themselves from not paying the amount as was assured by them. Accordingly, the Ops National Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the assured amount of Rs.15 Lac to the complainant who was the nominee of his son in the policy certificate. 

 

13. In the result and in view of the discussion made above, the claim for compensation of the complainant is allowed.

 

 

14. In the result, it is hereby directed that the OP, Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Agartala, West Tripura, insurer of the vehicle No.TR-07-B-5536 shall pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lac) only to the complainant within a period of 2(two) months from the date of this judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from today.

 

 

 

15. The case is disposed of on contest. 

 

16. Enter the result in the relevant register.

 

17. Supply copy of the judgment to the parties free of cost.