<br /> <br /> <br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This complainant is filed by the complainant l to realize 5 Lakhs an interest at the rate of 12% and other reliefs.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The 1st complainant is the wife and 2nd and 3rd complainants are the children of Sri.Jose Vincent, Leela Sadanam, Kadappakkada, Kollam, who died in a Motor Vehicle accident. The deceased jose vinncent was the registered owner of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-02/Q 3832. The said motor cycle was insured with the opp.party . The said policy is a comprehensive one with unlimited liability over the personal accident coverage. On 4.11.2003 at 8.45 p.m. the deceased Jose Vincent was driving the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-02/Q 3832 owned by him. When the vehicle reached near the Sasthamcotta Panchayat office one dog was sudden cross the road and apply break suddenly and lost control of the motor cycle from him and capsized to the left side of the road and sustained very serious head injuries suddenly taken to SIMS Kollam, and he was admitted to KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 17.12.2003. The deceased Sri. Jose Vincent is the registered owner of the vehicle which is having personal accident unlimited insurance coverage and having a valid driving license. Hence the complaint is allowed to realize an amount of 5 lakhs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum as compensation from the opp.party with cost. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party has filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The definition complaint, complainant, consumer dispute service as defined in section 2 [1] of the Consumer Protection Act do not cover the claim madeout in the complaint. It is admitted that this opp.party had issued a comprehensive package ‘B’ policy in favour of Jose Vincent for his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-2/ Q-3832. Under the insurance policy issued by this opp.party, Personal Accident Coverage for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted to the <br /> owner-driver in case of his death subject to certain terms and conditions incorporated in section III of the policy condition As per section III of the policy condition, the personal accident cover for owner-driver is subject to the mandatory condition that the owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 at the time of accident. On verification of the driving license details of the deceased insured produced before this opp.party, it is found that he was not holding an effective and valid license to drive the insured vehicle as on the date of accident. The driving license issued to the deceased Jose Vincent was expired on 2.5.2000 and he has not renewed the said license after the expiry of the same. In the instant case the insured Jose Vincent had committed specific breach of the policy condition and the statutory requirements envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act and thereby forfeited the right to get indemnified towards the Personal Accident Coverage granted under the Insurance contract. There is willful violation on the part of the insured who had committed breach of the policy condition. The opp.party had already informed the complainants about the decision to repudiate the claim with specific reasons vide its letter dt. 11.8.2004. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [i] Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.<br /> [ii] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 Examined and Ext.P1 to P3 were marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points [i] & [ii]<br /> <br /> It is not disputed that the 1st complainant’s husband diseased Jose Vincent has taken Ext.P2 policy and that the policy was subsisting when Mr. Jose Vincent died due to Motor accident. The complainant submitted that Ext.D4 claim which was repudiated lby the opp.party as per Ext.D3 letter on the ground that at the time of accident the owner-driver has no effective driving license which comes within the section iii [I] of the Ext.D2 policy condition.<br /> <br /> Ext.D1. is the policy and section III [I] [c] of the policy deals with personal accident cover for owner-driver. As per the said condition the owner-driver holds an effective driving license in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 at the time of accident. As per section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle. Now the question is whether the deceased hold an effective driving license in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of MV Rules 1989 at the time of accident. According to the opp.party Ext.D2 would establish that the deceased has not renewed his license after 2.5.2000. If it is not renewed within a period of 30 days after its expiry, the license shall be renewed only prospectively from the date of its renewal. Complainants did not produce any material to show that the deceased had renewed his license after 2.5.2000. Hence from Ext.D2 it is clear that the owner-driver of the insure3d vehicle committed violation of Section III [I] [c] of the policy condition.<br /> <br /> <br /> The learned counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of issuance of policy the opp.party had got ample opportunity to verfy the driving license of the diseased. That argument cannot be accepted. According to section III [I] [c] of Ext.D1, the owner-driver must have valid effective driving license at the h time of accident. Hence the complainant failed to prove that point. In these circumstances we are of the view that the repudiation of the claim as per section III –I] [c] of the policy condition is proper. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 30th day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant.<br /> PW.1. Mary Jannet<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – FIR & FIS<br /> P2. – Insurance policy<br /> P3. – lPostmortum certificate.<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Michel Antony<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Policy and conditions<br /> D2. – License attested copy<br /> D3. – Repudiation letter<br /> D4. – Claim intimation.<br /> <br />