Haryana

Ambala

CC/277/2021

Vandana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Kumar Achint

08 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :     277 of 2021

                                                          Date of Institution           :     31.08.2021

                                                          Date of decision    :     08.09.2022.

 

1. Vandana (Aged 33 yrs.) widow of Anil Kumar
2. Vinay Kumar (Aged 7 yrs.) S/o Anil Kumar
3. Janvi (Aged 6 yrs.) d/o Anil Kumar

(Complainant no.2 and 3 being minor through her mother Vandana Complainant no.1 who is the next friend and natural guardian)

4. Ram kali (Aged 64 yrs.) w/o Murari Lal

All R/o H.No.1080, Ward no.8, Shiwala mandi, Village Machhonda, District-Ambala

          ……. Complainants.

                                                Versus

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2nd floor, Triloki Chambers, Opposite-Municipal Corporation, Ambala Cantt.

….…. Opposite Party.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.            

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Rakesh Kumar Achint, Advocate, counsel for the                                 complainants.

                     Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

(a) To pay sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/-.

 b) To pay Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainants.

c) To pay interest @ 12% from the date of accident i.e. 26.9.2020 till realization.

d) To pay litigation expenses.

e) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.           

2. complainant no.1 is the widow, complainant no.2 is the minor son, complainant no.3 is the minor daughter and complainant no. 4 is the mother of Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal. Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal, who was the registered owner of motorcycle no.HR-01 AC-0677 which was duly insured with the OP vide policy no.1101003120P105775546 valid from 03.9.2020 till 02.9.2021. In the said policy complainant no.1 is nominated as nominee of Anil Kumar. Anil Kumar died in a road side accident on 26.09.2020 when he was going to his Job at Ambala City. The complainants had supplied all the necessary documents as and when demanded by the official/surveyor of the OP but till date it has failed to settle the claim, without any cogent reasons. Complainant no.1 has approached the OP number of times, in the matter but to no avail. Complainant no.1 sent a Registered A.D legal notice through her counsel on 16.7.2021 to the OP. After receiving the legal notice, the OP appointed surveyor/investigator in the matter. The action of the OP is against the general precept of insurance as well against the well settled law that insured should not be put to unnecessary harassment hence anti-consumer. The OP cannot take advantage of the exclusion clause/terms and conditions which never formed a part of the insurance policy and was never communicated to the complainants. As per the settled proposition of law, where the terms and condition were not brought to the knowledge of the policy holder, in such cases, the terms of the policy cannot be used against the policy holder to disentitle him from the benefits of the policy. The Insurance Act has been enacted as a social legislation in order to meet unforeseen financial help which may arise in the event of any accident and damage to the vehicle so that individual policy holder may overcome financial crises. The main aim of the insurance companies is to pay the genuine claim of the policy holder and not to avoid its liability for any false grounds. By not paying the claim amount, the OP indulged into unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service. Hence, the present complaint.

3.                 Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the deceased/insured was not having an effective and valid driving license at the time of accident on 26.09.2020, which act was in violation of law and terms and condition of the Insurance Policy, as such, the OP is not liable at all. Rest of the averments made by the complainants in their complaint were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.                 Learned counsel for the complainants, tendered affidavit of the complainant no.1 as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of the Tajinder Singh, AO United India Insurance Company Limited, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-A alongwith document as Annexure OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that since the insured died on 26.09.2020 i.e. during the subsistence of insurance policy bearing no.1101003120P105775546 valid from 03.9.2020 till 02.9.2021, as such, the OP was under obligation to pay the claim amount, yet, by rejecting the same, the OP is deficient in providing service, negligent and also indulged into unfair trade. 

7.                 On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that since at the time of accident, the insured was not having any driving licence to drive any vehicle, as such, the claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated by the OP, strictly as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also there was fundamental violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

8.                 The only short question which needs to be decided by this Commission is, as to whether, the OP was justified in repudiating the claim of the insured-Anil Kumar (now deceased) on the ground that he was not having any driving licence for driving the motorcycle in question, which met with an accident, resulting into his death on 26.09.2020 or not.  It may be stated here that for answering this question, we need to refer CHAPTER II- LICENSING OF DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Section 3  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is reproduced hereunder:-

“…..CHAPTER II LICENSING OF DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

3. Necessity for driving licence.—

(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 3 [a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do….”

9.                 The aforesaid extracted provision makes it abundantly clear that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. In the present case, admittedly, the accident in question took place on 26.09.2020 and the insured died on the very same day i.e. 26.09.2020. It is also not in dispute that the insured was driving the motorcycle in question, which was engaged in the said accident on 26.09.2020. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision of MV Act, the insured was under obligation to possess driving licence on 26.09.2020 i.e. on the date of the said accident in which he died. Yet, when we peruse the driving licence, Annexure C-3, which had been issued in favour of the insured-Anil Kumar, we found that same has been issued by Government of Haryana on 14.10.2020 i.e. after 18 days of his death, which fact is not possible, as he had already died on 26.09.2020. It has not been clarified by the complainants, as to how a driving licence of a dead person i.e. Anil Kumar-insured who died on 26.09.2020, has been issued in his favour on 14.10.2020.  Even otherwise, even if for the sake of arguments, it is held that this driving licence was genuine, even then, it was issued on 14.10.2020 i.e. after 18 days of the  accident and death of the insured. Thus, it has been proved that the insured-Anil Kumar was not holding an effective and valid driving licence on the day of accident i.e. 26.09.2020, on which day he died also. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment passed in New India Assurance Company Vs. Suresh Chandra Agrawal published at 2015(3) CPR 470 (SC) has held that if the driver did not have effective and valid driving licence on the day of accident, it is a breach of fundamental terms and conditions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the insurance company had the right to reject the claim arising out there from. The ratio of law laid down in New India Assurance Company Vs. Suresh Chandra Agrawal’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case.  It is therefore held that the OP was justified in rejecting the claim filed by the complainants, on the ground that insured-Anil Kumar (now deceased) was not having any driving licence for driving the motorcycle in question, which met with an accident, on 26.09.2020, resulting into his death.

10.     For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 08.09.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President