BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 28th day of October, 2005
CD NO. 82/2005
1. S. Venkata Lakshmamma, W/o. Late S.Anjaneyulu.
2. S. Nagarathna, W/o. Late S.Hanumantha Rayudu.
3. S.Srikanth, S/o. Late S.Hanumantha Rayudu.
4. S.Manoj Kumar, S/o. Late S.Hanumantha Rayudu.
All are resident of H.No. 43/253, D-17, New Sankal Bag, N.R. Peta, Kurnool . . . Complainants
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd, Gandhinagar, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 16.10.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.L. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for the complainant and Sri D.A.Anees, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H. Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the CP Act, seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.2,00,000/- (assured sum of policy No. 8052024 standing on the name of the deceased), with interest at 18 % per annum from the date of demise of the deceased policy holder, Rs.20,000/- as damages for inconvenience and mental agony suffered, alleging the deceased S. Hanumantha Rayudu insured his Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 21G 8702 with the opposite party for covering personal accident vide policy No. 8052024 and died on 11.8.2004 when the said policy is in vogue, traveling in said car due to accident with a tractor and hence the complainant No.2 preferred claim under said policy as the policy holder died traveling said car and the opposite party repudiated it vide its letter dated 24.11.2004 alleging the risk under said policy covers only owner cum driver of the insured vehicle who is possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of said accident. As there is no specific mention in said policy that the said insurance covers only if the insured having effective driving licence meets accidental death while driving said vehicle the repudiation of claim is unreasonable and thereby amounts deficiency of service.
2. The written version of opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant and any deficiency of service on its part, alleges the response of the complainant in reply letter dated 19.11.2004 to the Registered letter No. 738 of the opposite party requiring the production of driving licence of the deceased insured policy holder, was that the deceased insured policy holder was not having any driving licence and the deceased was not driving the said insured vehicle but only traveling therein and as per the terms of the said policy it covers risk of life/ injury of the insured who happens tobe a owner driver of said insured vehicle and hence the benefits of said policy being not available to the decease insured policy holder who is a mere owner of said vehicle, the claim is repudiated reasonably and so the claim of the complainant being not sustainable seeks the dismissal of the complainant case with costs.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and reply of the opposite party to its interrogatories, the opposite party side has taken reliance on the documentary record in Ex B.1 to B.4 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defence.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of opposite party in repudiation of the claim and any liability of the opposite party for the claim:-
5. The Ex B.1 is attested copy of insured policy bearing No. 7120526 standing in the name of S. Hanumantha Rayudu the deceased policy holder, covering the insurance to 2003 model Maruthi Car bearing Engine No. 2458509 and chases No. 1770773 for a period commencing from 7.May 2003 to mid night of 6th May 2004. Even though the complaint and sworn affidavit of the complainant alleges the policy covering the said vehicle of the deceased policy holder was covered under policy No. 8052029 but as any such policy with the said number is filed by the complainant either in support of said contentions or to contradict the relevancy of Ex B.1 as any pertaining to the car of the deceased policy holder, there appears every doubt as to the particulars of the policy alleged by the complainant as covering the insurance to the vehicle of the deceased.
6. The Ex B.2 is the printed rules governing the private car package policy and various sections covering various aspects relating to and governing to the said insurance policy. Among them in section III relating to the aspect of personal accident cover for owner driver, under sub section 2 as to its coverage aspects requires the owner driver as insured and Registered owner of the vehicle so insured and hold at the time of accident an effective driving licence as contemplated under Rule 3 of Motor Vehicles 1989.
7. From the above clear stipulation for coverage of said insurance there remains any ambiguity as it specifically rules of the coverage to owner driver who is the register owner of said insured vehicle and possessing an effective driving licence at the time of accident.
8. The complainant side takes reference to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the United Indian Insurance Company Ltd Vs Puspalaya Printers reported in 2004–CPJ 499 and the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decision in M/s S.K Exports Private Ltd Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd and others reported in 2004 (2) CPR Pg 4 (NC) which lays that when the interpretation of statute is capable of two possible interpretation the one, beneficial to the insured shall be accepted consistent with the purpose for which the policy is taken, and where the words of document are ambiguities they shall be construed against the party who prepared in document. But the said decision does not appear to be of any relevancy to the facts of this case as there is no ambiguity in term of section III (2) as to the coverage of said policy or there being any possible double interpretation favoring both insured and insurer.
9. If the intension of the said policy is to cover the owner of the said insured vehicle only irrespective of his holding any driving licence there would have been no wording there in the said section requiring the registration of said vehicle on owner driver and the owner driver as insured of said vehicle. The very requirement of in said section to give to coverages under said policy that the said owner driver hold an effective driving licence at the time of accident makes its clear that the insured contemplated under said policy was a owner cum driver and not mere a owner of the said insured vehicle.
10. Hence their appear any deficiency of service or deficient conduct of opposite party in repudiation of the claim of the complainant vide Ex B.4 for want of effective driving licence to the insured of the said vehicle at the time of accident he met in said car.
11. Consequently, there being no merit and force in the case and cause of action of the complainant fixing any liability of the opposite party for the claim made the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum, on this the 28th day of October, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant : Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:-
Ex B.1 Attested copy of Insurance Policy bearing No. 7120526 standing in the
Name of S.Hanumantha Rayudu.
Ex B.2 Is the private car package policy conditions.
Ex B.3 Letter dt 24.11.2004 from second complainant to opposite party.
Ex B.4 Attested copy of letter dated 24.11.2004 by opposite party.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri M.L.Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate,
2. Sri D.A.Anees, Advocate,
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
