Date of Filing     :07-05-2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:29-04-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the  29^th  day of   April, 2015

          PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                             Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, Member.

C.C.No.56/2013

Shaik Vahida, W/o.Late Shaik Shiraj,

Muslim, Widow, Aged about 30 years,

Presently resident at Yellasiri Village,

Chittamuru Mandal, Nellore District.                                                        ..… Complainant   

                                                                           Vs.

                                                            .    

            This complaint coming on 13-04-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri G.V.Ramesh and Sri Sk. Abdul Samath, advocates for the complainant and                                                                             Sri T. Kumar, advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

                   The brief averments of the  complaint are as follows:

          The complainant averred that her  husband was having  a Hero Honda motor cycle,  that the same  was  insured with the opposite party during 22-05-2012 and 21-05-2013  that her husband was travelling on that vehicle and that he met with an accident.  It was further averred that he died, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, on 25-08-2012.  Hence, the complainant filed this case, as the personal accident benefit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  was not repaid  to her, as claimed by her. 

            2.         The brief averments of the  counter of the opposite party are as follows:

            The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  The complainant is not a  consumer. The opposite party  contended that the vehicle  of the husband of the complainant was insured  with the opposite party, but the complainant is not entitled to the amount, since the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving license.  The opposite party claimed that no deficiency of service was committed by it, since the claim was repudiated on technical grounds.

3.         Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite party committed a deficiency of service?”

            4.         The complainant filed her affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6.  On behalf of the opposite party, the administrative officer filed his affidavit and marked ExsB1 and B2.

5.      POINT: The affidavits of the complainant  and the administrative officer of the opposite party are in conformity with their pleading.  Both parties filed the certificate cum policy (ExsA1 and B1).   The opposite party is relying upon condition No.5, 3 (C) of the policy (Ex.B1) in support of its contention.  The opposite party contended, that the owner-cum-driver of the motor vehicle, the late husband of the complainant, was not having effective driving license to drive  the said vehicle.  Ex.B2  is the  driving  license  particulars of the deceased.  The deceased was  possessing driving license for light motor vehicle, transport and non-transport categories.  The vehicle was a motor cycle with gear.   A  light motor vehicle is bigger than  a two wheeler.  The deceased, therefore  was having license to drive a bigger vehicle.  A light motor vehicle will also have gears.  The deceased therefore was having license to drive a light motor vehicle having gears.  It is preposterous to hold  that a person having effective driving license to drive  a light motor vehicle, is not competent to drive  a two wheeler .   We have no hesitation to hold    that there is no force in the contention of the  opposite party.  The deceased was having  effective driving license to drive a motor cycle with gear.  The repudiation of the policy with reference to  driving license is not valid.  The same amounts to deficiency of service.  Since, the opposite parties  committed a deficiency  of service,  the complainant is entitled for refund of the personal accident amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint till realisation alongwith costs of Rs.3,000/-.  The repudiation might have caused agony to the complainant.  The complainant is therefore  entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which is adequate under the circumstances of the case.  The point is held accordingly.

6.         In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay personal accident amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with interest at 9%  from the date of the complaint till realization alongwith costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 29^th day of  April, 2015.

           MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

Copies to:

Date when free copy was issued: