This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Laxman Perumallu, Advocate for complainants and of Sri.G.Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is the wife and the complainant No.2 is the daughter of the deceased, Gade Rambabu, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29-8-2007 at about 8-00 hours on R & B B.T. Road of Sarapaka-Bhadrachalam on Godavari River Bridge, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. The complainants submitted that the deceased, Gade Rambabu, during his lifetime, purchased a motor cycle through financial assistance from Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited, Khammam branch and insured with opposite party and the insurance policy includes the personal accident benefit scheme for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and opposite party Khammam branch issued insurance policy vide its cover note No.5402132 and the policy is valid from 29-1-2007 to 28-1-2008. The complainants also submitted that on 28-8-2007 the husband of the complainant No.1 went to his sister’s house at Manuguru town for celebrating the festival of Raaki and after completion of festival, he started on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 20 P 5656 and while returning to Kunavaram when he reached on the Godavari river bridge at about 8-00 p.m. one Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 20 P 7117 came from Bhadrachalam side driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the motor cycle, resulting to which the husband of the complainant No.1 fell on the road and sustained grievous head injury, both legs were fractured and also sustained multiple injuries and the vehicle also completely damaged. Immediately the husband of complainant No.1 was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Bhadrachalam, due to serious condition he was shifted to Govt. Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam and later he was again shifted to Mamatha General Hospital, Khammam, wherein undergoing treatment, succumbed due to injuries on 4-9-2007 at about 18-10 hours and thereafter Duty Medical Officer, Govt. Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam conducted autopsy and gave his report. Further the complainants submitted that after the death of Gade Rambabu, they informed the same to opposite party and submitted the application before opposite party, Khammam Branch on 5-2-2008 and sent legal notice through their counsel on 27-5-2008, inspite of service of legal notice, the opposite party did not choose to pay the insurance amount under personal accident benefit scheme to the complainant nor gave any reply. Further complainant submitted that they spent an amount of Rs.32,000/- at M/s.Rangaraya Auto Agency, Khammam towards repairs of motor cycle. The opposite party has not taken any action for payment of the compensation under Personal Accident Benefit Scheme. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint.
On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.13.
Ex.A.1 - Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.192/2007 of
P.S.Bhadrachalam town.
Ex.A.2 - Certified copy of Charge sheet in Cr.No.192/2007.
Ex.A.3 - Certified copy of PME report, dt.5-9-2007
Ex.A.4 - Attested copy of panchanama in Cr.NO.192/2007
Ex.A.5 -Certified copy of MVI in Cr.192/2007 of PS Badrachalam
Town
Ex.A.6 - copy of Claim of the complainant, dt.5-2-2008
Ex.A.7 - office copy of legal notice, dt.27-5-2008
Ex.A.8 - Courier receipts (4 Nos.)
Ex.A.9 - office copy of legal notice, dt.7-10-2009
Ex.A.10 - Courier receipts (2 Nos.)
Ex.A.11 - cash bills (4 Nos.) issued by Rangaraya Auto Agency,
Khammam.
Ex.A.12 - photocopy of motor proposal form,
Ex.A.13 - copy of letter, dt.6-1-2010.
On receipt of the notice, opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In their counter, opposite party denied all the averments made in the complaint against them and opposite party submitted that the complainants never approached the opposite party for claiming insurance amount, there is specific condition in the policy stating that if any accident or damage is caused to the vehicle or its owner/insured, the same was informed to the company immediately by writing or orally or by phone, but the complainants failed to comply such condition and also in written arguments opposite party submitted that at the time of accident the deceased was holding learners licence, as per the provision of said licence, he has licence to drive through out India as a learner, subject to the provisions of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, the motor cycle i.e. motor cycle and tractor and trailer only. And also submitted that the deceased did not comply the said provision at the time of accident i.e. a perfect valid driving licence holder shall accompany the learners licence while driving the vehicle, but no person having valid driving licence had accompanied him at the time of accident. It is a clear violation of policy terms and conditions. As such they are not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
On behalf of the opposite parties, the following documents were filed and marked as Exs.B.1 to B.4.
Ex.B.1 - Photocopy of Letter Ref.No.7, dt.25-12-2008
Ex.B.2 - Photocopy of Letter ref. No.PA-249, dt.3-8-2008.
Ex.B.3 - Photocopy of Letter, ref. No.PA-249-1, dt.20-3-2008
Ex.B.4 - Photocopy of Letter, ref.No.KMM/MTRCLM/035/2008,
dt.14-1-2008
Ex.B.5 - Photocopy of Claim intimation sheet
Ex.B.6 - Photocopy of Motor Insurance Cover Note customer copy
Ex.B.7 - Photocopy of Certificate of Registration
Ex.B.8 - photocopy of claim form for motor vehicle along with
documents.
The opposite party filed written arguments and also filed the following judgments to prove its case.
i) Civil Appeal No.3486 of 1986 of Supreme Court of India between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others;
ii) Civil Appeal No.4199 of 1995 of Supreme Court of India between Suchitra Devi (Smt.) Presiding officer, Labour Court and another.
iii) 2004 ACJ 979 of High court of Andhra Pradesh between V.V.Somani Vs. I.Annapurna and others.
iv) FAIA 292 of 2009 in FA 202/2009 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh between National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another Vs. Daljit Singh Logia.
Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim as prayed for?
Point:
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants are wife and daughter of the deceased, Gade Rambabu, who purchased the motor cycle bearing No.AP 20 P 5656 through finance from Sriram City Finance, Khammam branch, insured the vehicle with opposite party. The said insurance policy includes the personal accident benefit scheme for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and opposite party issued insurance policy vide its cover Note No.4502132 and the policy is valid from 29-1-2007 to 28-1-2008. On 29-8-2007 at about 8 p.m. the said Rambabu was riding on his motor cycle and returning from his sister’s house at Manuguru to Kunavaram and when he reached on Godavari bridge, one TATA indica car came from Bhadrachalam dashed the motor cycle of G.Rambabu, fell down and sustained injuries and died on 4-9-2007 after that the complainant informed the same to the opposite party and made application for settlement of claim, as the opposite party failed to settle the same, they approached the forum for redressal.
We observed from the record that the issuance of personal accident benefit scheme is not in dispute. The period of coverage and the death by accident on 29-8-2007 is also not in dispute. It is the case of the opposite party that the deceased was having learner’s licence as on the date of accident and the deceased did not have a valid driving licence as per rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Act. And also opposite party taken objection that as per Rule 3 of M.V. Act, the vehicle when driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, a perfect and valid driving licence holder shall accompany the learners licence holder while driving the vehicle, but no perfect driving licence holder had accompanied at the time of accident. Keeping this in view, the learner’s licence is a valid licence and that there is no pillion rider at the time of accident and the complainant failed to produce any evidence to disprove the case of the opposite parties.
To support their case, the complainants relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahamooda and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others. Judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC, Chandigarh in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Daljit Singh Logia III (2010) CPJ 368 clearly states that learner’s licence is a valid licence within the meaning of provisions of the Act unless it is disqualified under section 3 and 4 of M.V. Act.
Keeping in view the aforementioned judgments and in view of the discussion held above, the deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and necessary conditions which are mandatory in case of learners licence were not comply with. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any insurance claim and the complaint is fit to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 23rd day of May, 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRIC CONSUMER FORUM,
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant:- None
Witnesses examined for opposite party: - None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:
Ex.A.1 - Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.192/2007 of
P.S.Bhadrachalam town.
Ex.A.2 - Certified copy of Charge sheet in Cr.No.192/2007.
Ex.A.3 - Certified copy of PME report, dt.5-9-2007
Ex.A.4 - Attested copy of panchanama in Cr.NO.192/2007
Ex.A.5 -Certified copy of MVI in Cr.192/2007 of PS Badrachalam
Town
Ex.A.6 - copy of Claim of the complainant, dt.5-2-2008
Ex.A.7 - office copy of legal notice, dt.27-5-2008
Ex.A.8 - Courier receipts (4 Nos.)
Ex.A.9 - office copy of legal notice, dt.7-10-2009
Ex.A.10 - Courier receipts (2 Nos.)
Ex.A.11 - cash bills (4 Nos.) issued by Rangaraya Auto Agency,
Khammam.
Ex.A.12 - photocopy of motor proposal form,
Ex.A.13 - copy of letter, dt.6-1-2010.
Exhibits marked for opposite party:-
Ex.B.1 - Photocopy of Letter Ref.No.7, dt.25-12-2008
Ex.B.2 - Photocopy of Letter ref. No.PA-249, dt.3-8-2008.
Ex.B.3 - Photocopy of Letter, ref. No.PA-249-1, dt.20-3-2008
Ex.B.4 - Photocopy of Letter, ref.No.KMM/MTRCLM/035/2008,
dt.14-1-2008
Ex.B.5 - Photocopy of Claim intimation sheet
Ex.B.6 - Photocopy of Motor Insurance Cover Note customer copy
Ex.B.7 - Photocopy of Certificate of Registration
Ex.B.8 - photocopy of claim form for motor vehicle along with
documents.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
KHAMMAM
