IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA Monday the 29th day of February, 2016 Filed on 29.11.2013 Present - Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in C.C.No.364/2013 between Complainants:- Opposite Parties:- - Smt. Thankamoni 1. The Branch Manager
W/o Deceased Ramachandra Kurup Branch Office, Iffco Tokio Kadappalayil House General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Kadappalil) Kalavoor P.O. Near Peerless Office Alappuzha District West of Convent Square (By Adv. James Chacko) Mehdis Building, First Floor Alappuzha - Smt. Suja @ Maya (By Adv. D. Rajeev)
D/o Deceased Ramachandra Kurup -do- Sri. Vasudevan Nair Hari OHM, Kalavoor P.O. - Smt. Raji @ Priya Chandran Alappuzha – 688 522
D/o Deceased Ramachandra Kurup (By Adv. T.J. Thulasikrishnan) -do- O R D E R SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainants is as follows:- The complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandra Kurup. The deceased was a permanent driver of the Autorikshaw No.KL-4/AB-3631. The said Autorikshaw was insured with the first opposite party and the owner of the Autorikshaw for extra covering personal accident to the driver. On 31.8.2012 while Ramachandra Kurup was driving the Autorikshaw it met with an accident and Ramachandra Kurup was died in the said accident. As per the conditions of the policy, the insurer is liable to disburse Rs.50,000 in favour of the complainants. Hence they filed the claim form before the first opposite party. But it was repudiated by the first opposite party. The act of the first opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainants is illegal and against the terms and conditions of the policy. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed. 2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:- First opposite party has received Rs.25/- to cover legal liability to driver. But that amount does not cover any personal accident policy to the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle may opt to file a case before the Workmen Compensation Court or before the Motor Accident’s Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha for getting compensation under that policy. The complainants already filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha as OP No.1128/2012. As per the settled position a person cannot approach two different Forum at the same time for getting compensation in connection with the same accident. The matter cannot be entertain by this
Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction on the above complaint. As per the Indian Motor Tariff party can approach only a workmen compensation for getting compensation under the policy liability can only fixed by the workmen compensation Court. 3. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:- It is an admitted that complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Ramachandra Kurup. The vehicle was insured with the first opposite party by the second opposite party. The act of the first opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainants was illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. 4. The first complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. Opposite party was examined as RW1. 5. The points came up for considerations are:- - Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief and cost?
6. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-4/AB-3631 was insured with the first opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that first opposite party has received Rs.25/- to cover legal liability to driver. According to the first opposite party the driver of the vehicle may opt to file a case before the Workmen’s Compensation Court or before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for getting compensation under that policy. In the version they stated that the complainants had filed claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as OP No.1128/12. The complainants have no case that they have not filed such a case before the MACT., Alappuzha. At the same time as per the ruling report in 2011 ACJ 1263 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bidami and others that, “Whether claimants who have received compensation under Motor Vehicle Act for death of the deceased are not debarred from making claim against employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act – Held: yes; doctrine of election under section 167 does not apply qua the claimants; respondents in two proceedings are different and insurance contracts are also different though with same insurance company; intention or bar under section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act or section 3(5) of Workmen’s Compensation Act or section 53 of E.S.I. Act is only to save same person, viz., employer where such employer happens to be tortfeasor also, being vexed twice over for same cause of action.” Hence the legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandra Kurup can file claim before the Workmen’s Compensation Court also. As per the Indian Motor Tariff, the party can approach only a Workmen Compensation Court for getting compensation under the policy. Hence we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file before the appropriate authority for getting compensation. In the result, complaint dismissed. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me an pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:_ PW1 - Thankamoni (Witness) Ext.A1 - True copy of legal notice, postal receipt and A/d Ext.A2 - True copy of FIR Ext.A3 - True copy of Final report Ext.A4 - True copy of Postmortem certificate Ext.A5 - True copy of Legal heirship certificate Ext.A6 - True copy of Insurance Certificate Ext.A7 - True copy of RC book Ext.A8 - True copy of permit Ext.A9 - True copy of driving license Evidence of the opposite parties:- RW1 - Promod John (Witness) // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F. Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:- | 
